USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Sophion-Black 0]

something tells me by this post that you [denoir] seem to dislike Americans. now i'm seeing more and more how you like a country that supported order in that hemispere for three global wars. and the Americans took a stand with your common enemies.

lets consider this the last post i'll have in communication with you. you're ideas and oppionins are nothing more than just flame-bating with my background.

on a side note: if individual countries create thier own network it will still end up with the problem in time. because people will still want to talk to poeple in other countires. eventualy branching out to this network today.

[NurEinMensch 0]

What makes you think so? That he says he doesn't like your government? Many Americans don't, either. And they showed they aren't trustworthy, that is a fact.

Apart from that I see nothing that even remotly suggests he likes or likes not someone. He just doesn't agree with the official US position.

Yes, his posts are not US friendly. So what, that's reason enough to ignore someone?

[denoir 0]

something tells me by this post that you [denoir] seem to dislike Americans.

No, by that post you should have concluded that I don't trust the US government. But now that you mention it, I don't particularly like the current US government either, but that's besides the point in this discussion.

Quote[/b] ]now i'm seeing more and more how you like a country that supported order in that hemispere for three global wars. and the Americans took a stand with your common enemies.

Three wars? Counting the two world wars, which was the third? Anyway, what does that tell you when your closest friends and allies don't trust you? Is it perhaps time to take a look in the mirror?

Quote[/b] ]on a side note: if individual countries create thier own network it will still end up with the problem in time. because people will still want to talk to poeple in other countires. eventualy branching out to this network today.

Nobody said individual countries would create their own root mappings. There would be one for the world minus America and one for America.

billybob:

Quote[/b] ]Thanks for proving my point of anybody but the USA. I guess the internet, now, is what the TBA wants it to be...

Well, that discussion is fairly academic, because we're only talking about control of the root files - i.e the most basic DNS services such as domain namespaces. (i.e ".com", ".net",".se" etc). But there is one instance where the US government intervened albeit indirectly. It apparently pressured the ICANN not to allow the .XXX namespace.

ICANN does not however have control over the domain registars and much less of actual servers.

Quote[/b] ]That is fine and all but that is not the EU position on this matter.

So? As I said, I don't agree with the EU position. The only thing I agree with is that one country shouldn't have complete control over the root files. The EU is not looking for a UN solution, but they are more interested in just getting ICANN truly independent (as was actually planned, but scrapped by the Bush administration).

Personally, I'd like a UN declaration of online rights - a top level treaty that guarantees freedom of speech etc

[Sophion-Black 0]

What makes you think so? That he says he doesn't like your government? Many Americans don't, either. And they showed they aren't trustworthy, that is a fact.

Apart from that I see nothing that even remotly suggests he likes or likes not someone. He just doesn't agree with the official US position.

Yes, his posts are not US friendly. So what, that's reason enough to ignore someone?

we have a history of not argeeing

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Well, that discussion is fairly academic, because we're only talking about control of the root files - i.e the most basic DNS services such as domain namespaces. (i.e ".com", ".net",".se" etc). But there is one instance where the US government intervened albeit indirectly. It apparently pressured the ICANN not to allow the .XXX namespace.

ICANN does not however have control over the domain registars and much less of actual servers.

The .XXX domain has been placed on "hold" to be scrutize some more. You can take that for its worth but the issue will be taken care of at a later date. FYI, back in Nov. of 2000 (pre-TBA) .XXX domain was denied by ICANN.

The US govt. has never overruled any ICANN decisions.

Quote[/b] ]So? As I said, I don't agree with the EU position. The only thing I agree with is that one country shouldn't have complete control over the root files. The EU is not looking for a UN solution, but they are more interested in just getting ICANN truly independent (as was actually planned, but scrapped by the Bush administration).

Well, it is not this

General Barron:

Quote[/b] ]

Now if the UN were arguing that the US should reliquish it's authority over ICANN, and rule that NO govt can excersize control over it, I would support them 100%.

Denoir:

Quote[/b] ]That's the EU position, but it has been flat out refused by the US.

It still wouldn't be truly "independent".

Quote[/b] ]

Personally, I'd like a UN declaration of online rights - a top level treaty that guarantees freedom of speech etc

You mean like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is not a legally binding document? You think China and co. would allow a "Declaration of Online Rights" that is a legally binding document?

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]Given the shitty status of your civil liberties, yours is one of the last governments I would trust to "not touch" the internet. I'd sooner trust the Chinese government than yours (and I really, really don't trust the Chinese government).

I really get the impression that you have a completely inbred view of the US. By 'inbred', I mean that you only read/listen to news and opinions that agree with your anti-US sentiment, who in turn only read/listen to those who agree with them, and so on, resulting in a fantasy world where everything is black and white to the extreme. I see this all the time in American political discourse, and I see the same thing in you.

If you think that American civil liberties are worse off than the Chinese, then you are living in a fantasy land where logic does not exist. Even if Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and the Patriot act are as bad as the absolute worst people say it is, we still got nothin on China. Its just an absurd denial of logic/reality to suggest otherwise.

Quote[/b] ]Our record on freedom of speech?

I have heard that there are certain countries in Europe where you can be thrown in jail for what you say, if it is considered "hate speech" or whatever. Is this true? If so, your idea of "free speech" isn't as free as you think.

Throwing people in jail for what they say would be unthinkable to 99% of Americans. We value our freedom of speech to the EXTREME, more than any other right we have. I don't even think twice about it, but to a European it might be striking how deeply this concept is engrained in every aspect of our culture.

But this is more than just a cultural difference between the US and Europe; it is a legal one too. The 1st amendment of our constitution gives us that right, and it has such high legal authority that you can even have really weird legal situations as a result. For example, it is illegal for me to go out and have sex in exchange for money (prostitution), but it is NOT illegal for me to have sex in exchange for money, take pictures of it and publish them (pornography). They are basically the same thing, but because you are publishing one of them, it is legally untouchable.

So let me see... an organization made up of places where you can be thrown in jail for what you say, or one with total freedom of speech... which would I trust more with my internet...  

Privacy, OTOH, is a separate issue. Someone listening to what you say does not prevent you from saying it. I'm not saying I like the idea, nor do I like the infringements on our rights contained in the Patriot act. However, what EVERYONE needs to realize is that in a very short time NO ONE will have ANY privacy, be it from governments or other citizens. As technology moves faster and faster, it will be easier and easier to find out anything you want about anyone else. This is just an unfortunate fact that we all must come to accept. The bright side is, like I said, that does not actually PREVENT you from doing anything. And as long as governents are kept in check by the people, they generally won't be able to act on this information in an abusive way.

Quote[/b] ]But seriously, there is a very strong trend with Americans (far from all, but still many) to automatically assume that the American value system is the "right" one on an absolute scale and that it thus should be enforced.

Umm... I'm afraid to break it to you, but that is a trend with humans in general, not just Americans. You assume that your value system is the "right" one, or else you wouldn't be so adamant in your positions on this forum. Many assume that the UN should enforce one kind or another kind of "value" system on the rest of the world. EVERYONE thinks that certain values should be forced on other people. That is the fundamental role of government.

So the question is: which set of values is "right", and then should be enforced? I would argue that you should only enforce only the most definition of "right" and "wrong": the unagreed use of force against another person. In short, this means that you can do anything, as long as it isn't infringing on the equal rights of others. That is the basis of my political and moral beliefs. The great thing about it is that it satisfies everyone EXCEPT those who seek to use the government to control other people.

[Bordoy 0]

Quote[/b] ]I have heard that there are certain countries in Europe where you can be thrown in jail for what you say, if it is considered "hate speech" or whatever. Is this true? If so, your idea of "free speech" isn't as free as you think.

Throwing people in jail for what they say would be unthinkable to 99% of Americans. We value our freedom of speech to the EXTREME, more than any other right we have. I don't even think twice about it, but to a European it might be striking how deeply this concept is engrained in every aspect of our culture.

Maybe it is because you Americans don't have a significant amount of immigrants from the middle east. You don't have people like Omar Bakri in a mosque telling his muslim friends to kill non-believers etc etc etc.

I hold free speach dearly but some people really go pass the line and need to be dealt with in one way or another.

Then again, a few of you Americans like George Galloway

[General Barron 0]

[one more thought]

Quote[/b] ]On the contrary, without regulations, in a free market system, anything can be bough or sold - including civil liberties.

A free society where the government's job is to enforce individual liberties does not allow civil liberties to be bought or sold. I do not believe in anarchy, even though it would include free markets. Instead, I believe that the government's sole job should be to protect the individual's rights. Bear in mind that my definition of a 'right' does not include 'the right to force other people do do things'.

Quote[/b] ]In short, you can treat people any way you like, just if you pay for it. The Chinese can censor their citizens because they can buy that service from Google et al Freedom of speech is by no means a result of free markets.

Again, the only reason that censorship is there is because of the Chinese government not upholding people's rights. In the free market of a free society, that would never occur, because (a) the government wouldn't have the power or authority of censorship, and (b) there is no economic incentive to force censorship on people against their will.

If you want the Chinese to stop censoring their internet, we should work from the top down. That is, make the Chinese into a free society, which would fix not only the internet but a myriad of other problems; instead of just fixing one problem (the internet), yet leaving the rest of the problems there.

Quote[/b] ]While the market can regulate economic matters, for the rest, it's crap. The spam, the censorship etc are all the results of a market regulated internet.

True, things like spam, pop-ups, and other forms of advertising ARE the result of a free market. And true, they likely COULD be stopped via government regulation. But such regulation means that the government would have to restrict the freedoms of EVERY internet user in some way, which is unnecessary, and (like any government regulation of a free market) which is going to have unintended consequences.

Bear in mind that those advertisements are the reason why you can enjoy so much of the internet for free, since the money you send to your ISP doesn't end up in the pockets of the websites you visit. Obviously servers cost money, and currently most of that money comes from *gasp* Evil Businesses in the form of advertising.

One solution would be to charge the end-user each time he visits a website. Thus the advertising wouldn't be used much, since it would discourage visitors. This could be forced upon the internet via a government, or it could naturally come into place as a result of market forces. The fact that pay-for-use sites aren't very common just goes to show that most people wouldn't want it.

THAT is how a free market works: everyone votes with their dollars (or visits in the case of the internet). A government simply can not react to the will of the people as effectively as that. The internet is a beautiful example of a 'free society' of sorts. So far it has managed to regulate itself just fine, so I see no reason why we should bastardize its freedoms like humanity does to the physical world.

[/one more thought]

[red oct 2]

Quote[/b] ]Maybe it is because you Americans don't have a significant amount of immigrants from the middle east

we do get a significant amount of immigrants who preach the same BS. go stay in southern CA for a while and you'll see some of the friendly neighborhood gangs.

[denoir 0]

I really get the impression that you have a completely inbred view of the US. By 'inbred', I mean that you only read/listen to news and opinions that agree with your anti-US sentiment, who in turn only read/listen to those who agree with them, and so on, resulting in a fantasy world where everything is black and white to the extreme. I see this all the time in American political discourse, and I see the same thing in you.

On the contrary, my absolute favourite US political site is this: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/

I assure you that my "anti-US" sentiment is quite my own.

Quote[/b] ]If you think that American civil liberties are worse off than the Chinese, then you are living in a fantasy land where logic does not exist. Even if Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and the Patriot act are as bad as the absolute worst people say it is, we still got nothin on China. Its just an absurd denial of logic/reality to suggest otherwise

Where have I ever said that American civil liberties are worse than the Chinese? I never said or suggested anything to that effect. On the contrary, in my opinion the Chinese are orders of magnitude worse off with their government than you are with yours.

What I said was that I trust the US government even less than the Chinese. That's based on practical experience. The Chinese governments may be fuckheads, but they don't affect me very much. Your lovely government on the other hand does in quite a few ways, and not seldom in a negative fashion.

Quote[/b] ]I have heard that there are certain countries in Europe where you can be thrown in jail for what you say, if it is considered "hate speech" or whatever. Is this true? If so, your idea of "free speech" isn't as free as you think.

Well, it's a bit difficult to answer, but I'll try. Also, I'm just speaking for Sweden now, I don't know the particularities of all member states as it's not regulated on Union level except for in a very general way.

I can write or say for example "We should kill all Norwegians" or "I hate Norwegians" etc, without it being a problem. If I however start an organization dedicated to advocating the murder of Norwegians, and hold speeches where I incite people to actually go and kill Norwegians, then I can be sentenced for "inciting violence against a nationality". Basically, it's the threshold of where speech gets transformed into actual action, when you start endangering people.

Most countries have these kind of restrictions. For instance in the US it is not legal to (falsely) yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre, to take a classical example. That kind of action is not considered to be part of the "freedom of speech".

Quote[/b] ]Throwing people in jail for what they say would be unthinkable to 99% of Americans. We value our freedom of speech to the EXTREME, more than any other right we have. I don't even think twice about it, but to a European it might be striking how deeply this concept is engrained in every aspect of our culture.

What is an striking aspect of your culture is that you think it is limited to American culture. Of course throwing people in jail for what they say is completely unthinkable here as well. What you used to be better at than us was the right to privacy, but that has seriously deteriorated in the last few years.

Quote[/b] ]But this is more than just a cultural difference between the US and Europe; it is a legal one too. The 1st amendment of our constitution gives us that right, and it has such high legal authority that you can even have really weird legal situations as a result. For example, it is illegal for me to go out and have sex in exchange for money (prostitution), but it is NOT illegal for me to have sex in exchange for money, take pictures of it and publish them (pornography). They are basically the same thing, but because you are publishing one of them, it is legally untouchable.

Hehe, the law is exactly the same way in Sweden. Buying sex is illegal, while making porn movies is not at all. Incidentally, Sweden is way behind most of Europe in that respect. In Germany for instance not only is prostitution legal, but they have their unions, get pension etc.. but that's another story.

Quote[/b] ]The bright side is, like I said, that does not actually PREVENT you from doing anything. And as long as governents are kept in check by the people, they generally won't be able to act on this information in an abusive way.

Well, that's of course unless they choose to throw you in jail without a trial or without even being charged with a crime. We're not too much into that over here (UK being the possible exception if they get a very bad proposed law through - which will probably be shot down on Union level anyway)

Quote[/b] ]Umm... I'm afraid to break it to you, but that is a trend with humans in general, not just Americans. You assume that your value system is the "right" one, or else you wouldn't be so adamant in your positions on this forum. Many assume that the UN should enforce one kind or another kind of "value" system on the rest of the world. EVERYONE thinks that certain values should be forced on other people. That is the fundamental role of government.

The UN has an agreed order of voting etc, loosely based on a democratic system. With that as a base I believe that the values that should be enforced by the UN is the values of its member states - through voting or one or another form of agreement. Basically what I'm saying is that despite that countries like Iran represent everything I resent, I do think they have the right to express their opinion and take part in UN decisions.

Quote[/b] ]In short, this means that you can do anything, as long as it isn't infringing on the equal rights of others. That is the basis of my political and moral beliefs. The great thing about it is that it satisfies everyone EXCEPT those who seek to use the government to control other people.

No kidding. That's an extremely trivial or/and naive statement. In the real world issues are interconnected, anything that you do will affect others. If you allow drugs (typical personal liberty), others will have to pay the medical costs for it. If you allow guns, they will be used to deprive others of the right to live and so on

[denoir 0]

[one more thought]

Quote[/b] ]On the contrary, without regulations, in a free market system, anything can be bough or sold - including civil liberties.

A free society where the government's job is to enforce individual liberties does not allow civil liberties to be bought or sold. I do not believe in anarchy, even though it would include free markets. Instead, I believe that the government's sole job should be to protect the individual's rights. Bear in mind that my definition of a 'right' does not include 'the right to force other people do do things'.

Like "force people not to kill other people"?

Quote[/b] ]Again, the only reason that censorship is there is because of the Chinese government not upholding people's rights. In the free market of a free society, that would never occur, because (a) the government wouldn't have the power or authority of censorship, and (b) there is no economic incentive to force censorship on people against their will.

The Chinese have a more or less free market. It's in no way tied to a free society, which they clearly don't have.

And b) of course there is great economic incentive to force censorhip on people. You can make them buy your product or not to import stuff etc

Quote[/b] ]If you want the Chinese to stop censoring their internet, we should work from the top down. That is, make the Chinese into a free society, which would fix not only the internet but a myriad of other problems; instead of just fixing one problem (the internet), yet leaving the rest of the problems there.

I don't want the Chinese to stop censoring their internet, at least not directly as it's their business. I may not like it but it's their country. What I do mind however is our companies helping them do it. These businesses are supposed to work by our values. Thanks to the unregulated market, they can be and are corrupted.

Quote[/b] ]True, things like spam, pop-ups, and other forms of advertising ARE the result of a free market. And true, they likely COULD be stopped via government regulation.

I'm not exactly sure how the "free viagra" emails are helping the internet economy

Quote[/b] ] The internet is a beautiful example of a 'free society' of sorts. So far it has managed to regulate itself just fine, so I see no reason why we should bastardize its freedoms like humanity does to the physical world.

The internet is very much regulated by local law, just to different degrees. For instance child pornography is banned everywhere. In Germany for instance Nazi web servers are banned. In China Falun Gong sites are banned etc Who controls the ICANN and the root files has little to do with all of that. What we're talking about here is the control of the top level namespaces and domains. It's the ability of a single government to cripple the internet at will. And I don't think that the US government (or any other single government for that matter) can be trusted with such power.

[denoir 0]

The .XXX domain has been placed on "hold" to be scrutize some more. You can take that for its worth but the issue will be taken care of at a later date. FYI, back in Nov. of 2000 (pre-TBA) .XXX domain was denied by ICANN.

The US govt. has never overruled any ICANN decisions.

TBA, TCA.. whatever - the US government.

From wikipedia:

Quote[/b] ]Meanwhile, the United States Department of Commerce has objected to the creation of this domain in response to complaints that it would legitimize pornography.

I don't know what quite constitutes "overruling", but they have made their displeasure known, and the ICANN followed their recommendation.

Quote[/b] ]Well, it is not this

As I see it, it is exactly that. The EU's proposal right now seems to be just to cut all govermental ties to the ICANN.

Quote[/b] ]You mean like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which is not a legally binding document? You think China and co. would allow a "Declaration of Online Rights" that is a legally binding document?

Exactly like the Universal Declaration of Human rights, and of course it wouldn't be a legally binding document. Don't be naive, China et al are going to do things their way just like America is regardless of any UN declarations, legally binding or otherwise. The idea here is to prevent American, European etc coroporations from helping China with censorship - as it is today. They'll be forced to do it themselves, which is nearly impossible. Right now they are able to do it simply because they can pay and bribe the largest search engine and portal companies to play along.

[General Barron 0]

Quote[/b] ]Like "force people not to kill other people"?

Um... I was hoping I had made myself clear enough, but I guess not.

I stated that part of my guiding principle was that you do NOT have the right to take somebody else's rights away without their consent. Killing another person takes away ALL of their rights, and therefore is against my principles. I'm astounded that I had to explain that...

Quote[/b] ]In the real world issues are interconnected, anything that you do will affect others. If you allow drugs (typical personal liberty), others will have to pay the medical costs for it. If you allow guns, they will be used to deprive others of the right to live and so on

Yes, if you allow guns, people might use them to kill innocent people. But others will use them to protect innocents. If you allow drugs, some will abuse them, although others will only be forced to pay their medical costs if you have a system where the government taxes others to pay for it, which I disagree with. But there will also be some people who casually use them to (in their opinion) enhance their life, as with alchohol.

No matter what, freedom can be abused. But that doesn't mean it should be traded for security, be it economic, physical, emotional, or whatever. And I don't care how much security someone ELSE wants; that doesn't give them the right to take away MY freedom to get it (unless I am abusing it).

Quote[/b] ]Basically what I'm saying is that despite that countries like Iran represent everything I resent, I do think they have the right to express their opinion and take part in UN decisions.

Why should a non-democratic country be allowed to take part in the UN? Governments that derive their power not from the willing consent of the people, but from the barrel of a gun should have no place in even a 'loosely' democratic world council.

Its absurd for an organization to claim to support certain basic human rights, yet give vots to these other crack-pot governments that don't give those basic rights to their own people. Yet I'm supposed to believe that this organization wants to stop companies like Google from helping the Chinese censor their internet, except they just don't have the power to do so at the moment? If they had the power or the will to bring freedoms to the Chinese people, they would have done so already, not just on the internet. Maybe if there were some oil-for-food money to be swindled, we might see some kind of action. But other than that, the UN is about as useful as screen doors on a submarine, as the saying goes.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]So what excactly would having a vote in a board of tens of countries do? The process would be awfully slow, much more visible and would not achieve anything that they can't already do with at the local level. Do you think rest of the organization members are going to fork over the money to set up unpopular, cumbersome, expensive filtering systems?

Does the ITU or the UPU censor phone calls or mail for China? Of course not, it just does not make any fucking sense.

They want influence simple has that. Why would they want influence I ask you.

Because they really really really would like not like one country having ultimate control over the fastest growing communications medium, just like every other country in the world?

[ralphwiggum 6]

Quote[/b] ]So what excactly would having a vote in a board of tens of countries do? The process would be awfully slow, much more visible and would not achieve anything that they can't already do with at the local level. Do you think rest of the organization members are going to fork over the money to set up unpopular, cumbersome, expensive filtering systems?

Does the ITU or the UPU censor phone calls or mail for China? Of course not, it just does not make any fucking sense.

They want influence simple has that. Why would they want influence I ask you.

Because they really really really would like not like one country having ultimate control over the fastest growing communications medium, just like every other country in the world?

indeed. EU wants to have a stake at something that is very influential. however, the problem is that the internet is found/made by US, and US is not forcing rest of the world to use internet.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]So what excactly would having a vote in a board of tens of countries do? The process would be awfully slow, much more visible and would not achieve anything that they can't already do with at the local level. Do you think rest of the organization members are going to fork over the money to set up unpopular, cumbersome, expensive filtering systems?

Does the ITU or the UPU censor phone calls or mail for China? Of course not, it just does not make any fucking sense.

They want influence simple has that. Why would they want influence I ask you.

Because they really really really would like not like one country having ultimate control over the fastest growing communications medium, just like every other country in the world?

indeed. EU wants to have a stake at something that is very influential. however, the problem is that the internet is found/made by US, and US is not forcing rest of the world to use internet.

That is true, yet we would prefer to do this in a manner that is not messy and does not involve re-inventing the wheels. Europeans pioneered mobile technologies, we are not claiming sole right to control every cellular link there is right?

[ralphwiggum 6]

That is true, yet we would prefer to do this in a manner that is not messy and does not involve re-inventing the wheels. Europeans pioneered mobile technologies, we are not claiming sole right to control every cellular link there is right?

making a different network is not reinventing the wheels. IF EU can come up with better, reliable networking scheme, the market will follow the invention and internet will be lost forever.

Let's be honest here. Just how much of threat does US pose on the internet? Although it would have been a lot easier to screw terrorist websites and some others who are more sympathetic, there is no action done by US government other than doing what every other internet users can do. US did not ask to control every part of internet.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think that:

* The political future of the internet.

* What organisation should control it

* To what degree it should be under national control

Etc.

Are all very important questions but I do not think they should be in this thread. Rather being of an international nature and of such an important subject area that it deserves its own thread. Entitled, "Who should run the internet?" or some such.

I there for request that the Moderators move these posts out of the US politics thread and to such a newly created thread.

Kind Regards Walker

[Sophion-Black 0]

hmm... that's one of the best suggestions I've heard in a while  

(source)

Quote[/b] ]

Helicopters and warplanes bombed two villages near Ramadi in western Iraq on Sunday, killing about 70 people, the US military says.

   

    It said all the dead were militants, although eyewitnesses are quoted saying that many were civilians. One of the air strikes hit the same spot where five US soldiers had died on Saturday in a roadside bombing. The US statement said a group of insurgents was about to place another bomb, although local people deny this. An F-15 warplane fired a precision guided bomb at the group, killing about 20 militants, the US statement said. Several witnesses quoted by Associated Press said they were civilians who had gathered near the wrecked US vehicle and 25 had died.

   

    Coalition forces continue to aggressively pursue terrorists whose aim is to kill Iraqi civilians and coalition forces in and attempt to disrupt the political process US military statement

   

    The victims were either standing around the wreck or scavenging bits of metal or equipment, witnesses said, as often happens after a successful insurgent attack.

    In a separate incident, the US military said it had killed a group of gunmen who had opened fire on a Cobra attack helicopter from the village of al-Bu Faraj.

    An F/A-18 warplane bombed a building where they were hiding, and 40 insurgents were killed, the military said. Witnesses quoted by AP said at least 14 of the dead were civilians.

    "Coalition forces continue to aggressively pursue terrorists whose aim is to kill Iraqi civilians and coalition forces in and attempt to disrupt the political process," the US statement said.

(Associated Press)

Now I don't know about you but this looks bad for the home team, AP reports and estimate of 39 civilians were killed too, thats 56% killed. Lets wait and hope that the coalition didn't goof-off  

[chops 111]

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Southwest Airlines kicked a woman off one of its flights over a political message on her T-shirt, the airline confirmed Thursday, and published reports say the passenger will sue.

Free speech deeply rooted in US culture?

Source

An isolated incident I know, but I can't imagine it happening in Western Europe.

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Southwest Airlines kicked a woman off one of its flights over a political message on her T-shirt, the airline confirmed Thursday, and published reports say the passenger will sue.

Free speech deeply rooted in US culture?    

Source

An isolated incident I know, but I can't imagine it happening in Western Europe.

Wonder what was the message though.. was it something like this?

http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=102

Then again, it might not be such a bad thing afterall:

http://www.tshirthell.com/traveloffer.htm

[sputnik monroe 102]

From the article...

Quote[/b] ]spokeswoman Marilee McInnis told the Gazette-Journal that the airline's contract with the Federal Aviation Administration contains rules that say the airline will deny boarding to any customer whose conduct is offensive, abusive, disorderly or violent or for clothing that is "lewd, obscene, or patently offensive."

 It's not federal transportation, it's a private enterprise. When on board one of their planes You follow their rules or you get off simple as that.

 Freedom of speech is one thing, claiming you have the right to do and say what ever you please on some one else’s private property is another. For example you have the right to wear a shirt that says "mother fucking fuck" on it. You don't  have the right to wear it in my store if I tell you that you can't. My store, my property, my rules.  

All she has coming to her if anything is an exact refund of her original ticket price.

   Case closed.

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Southwest Airlines kicked a woman off one of its flights over a political message on her T-shirt, the airline confirmed Thursday, and published reports say the passenger will sue.

Free speech deeply rooted in US culture?    

Source

An isolated incident I know, but I can't imagine it happening in Western Europe.

Why don't you plz split it out and get it over with. This is the second time you have mention that "I can't imagine this happening in (Western) Europe."

[denoir 0]

It's not federal transportation, it's a private enterprise. When on board one of their planes You follow their rules or you get off simple as that.

 Freedom of speech is one thing, claiming you have the right to do and say what ever you please on some one else’s private property is another. For example you have the right to wear a shirt that says "mother fucking fuck" on it. You don't  have the right to wear it in my store if I tell you that you can't. My store, my property, my rules.  

 All she has coming to her if anything is an exact refund of her original ticket price.

   Case closed.

Hmpf. Really? So they could say.. ban Asian people from boarding? Or beat you up?

I think that even in America law supercedes the local rules of a company. I very much doubt that you have the right to violate a person's constitutional right just because he's on your private property.

[Supah 0]

How it is here with restaurants and clubs is that you can ban certain clothes like trainers etc. but you cant ban morrocans. Depending on what the political message was this would be illegal here. If it was "I love george bush" then no you couldnt ban her for that, if it was "Kill all democrats" then you could ban her. I think it largely depends on the T-shirt in question.

on other news, from CNN

Quote[/b] ]House passes 'Cheeseburger Bill'

Food industry protected under proposal to prohibit obesity lawsuits.

October 19, 2005: 9:34 PM EDT

by Evan Glass, CNN Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) - Americans who blame their obesity on eating too much fast food would be prohibited from suing the food industry for their weight gain if a bill passed Wednesday by the House of Representatives becomes law.

The "Cheeseburger Bill," as it has been nicknamed in Congress, would block civil lawsuits against food manufacturers in federal or state courts by individuals claiming that their health condition was caused by the manufacturers' food.

"As one judge put it, if a person knows or should know that eating copious orders of super-sized McDonald's products is unhealthy and could result in weight gain, it is not the place of the law to protect them from their own excesses," said James Sensenbrenner, chairman of Judiciary Committee.

Two lawsuits have been filed against food makers on the grounds of causing obesity, with one being dismissed and the other still pending. Dismissing the one claim, the presiding judge cited a lack of evidence to connect the eating of fast food with an individual's obesity.

But the legislation does not block all legal action against the food industry. A lawsuit would still be permitted if a person got sick from contaminated food.

Armed with statistics that obesity among children has doubled in the past three decades, with one in three children currently overweight, some members argued that fast food companies need to be held accountable for their harmful products.

"Congress has allowed the need of big corporations before the need of our children," said Rep Bob Filner, D-Calif.

The House bill passed 307-119, but faces an uncertain future in the Senate. A similar bill passed the House during the last Congress, but the Senate never acted on it.

Perhaps it would be wiser if schools taught people to not eat so much crap