7 ms·

Here is the US, we're allowed to criticize the government. If you're unhappy with that, maybe you'd like to move to North Korea, China, or any of those other co

by cbaker 13y ago

Here is the US, we're allowed to criticize the government. If you're unhappy with that, maybe you'd like to move to North Korea, China, or any of those other countries where people like you are allowed to shut down critical thinking.

fleitz 13y ago
Didn't Snowden have to flee to China and then Russia so he could criticize his government with out fear of summary execution?
- joyeuse6701 13y ago
  Criticism of government has it's limits. Snowden is questionable because what he said was not public knowledge and had crippling negative effects towards security of the state, but say, expressing your criticism of government by blowing up a federal building...
  - fleitz 13y ago
    Similarly to how China would react to someone talking about Tianamen Square which isn't public knowledge but knowledge of it would cause a massive shit storm that would undermine the security of the state. It's not what happened, it's the idea of one man standing up to the state that strikes fear into their hearts.
    - enko 13y ago
      I would wager that almost every educated person in China knows exactly what happened at Tiananmen Square. Certainly every chinese person I've ever really gotten to know knew all about it. The politics around it is complicated, but there is an acceptance of sorts that there's some items the government does not want dwelled upon, and that's one of them. Don't underestimate Chinese political sophistication, especially amongst what we might call the middle class (a <10% minority in China). There is a common feeling, if not outright belief, that a strong government is necessary to hold the country together, especially during its current transition period with its massive inequalities. I am no expert but my impression is that the people who do know - the middle class educated, with internet access (firewalls are trivial to get around) understand or at least play along with the idea that from a stability point of view, some information is best not fully shared. I see some interesting parallels between Chinese political censorship and the debate about the NSA revelations, by the way. Both are about concealing information of great public interest in the name of some alleged greater good. The only real difference is that the events in Tianenmen Square happened outdoors.
      - fleitz 13y ago
        I'd be happy to accept that wager, http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/199765/24-years-later-chinese-students-know-nothing-about-the-tiananmen-square-protests/ http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/199765/24-years-later-chines... Beijing University from what I understand is where China's elite school (when not schooling overseas)
  - x0054 13y ago
    So releasing documents that prove that US Government is knowingly violating its citizens constitutional rights is equivalent in your mind to killing a lot of people with an explosive?
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - kbenson 13y ago
      It's called a juxtaposition because the items presented are different and meant to be contrasted.
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  No
  - waps 13y ago
    I keep wondering how people can possibly defend what Snowden did. He used social engineering exploits in his job as sysadmin on a large scale, then published the resulting information. He apparently even compromised personal accounts of the people he was supposed to help. Are we seriously suggesting letting people do this if they think the goal is just ? It seems so. I shudder to think what the consequences of that would be. Maybe we should create a "politically correct NSA" that spies on everyone who might be involved in unpopular politics ? How about spying on every company and violently extracting their labour practices ? I'm sure quite a few European unions wouldn't mind doing that (and at least in .be and .nl that would be a legal grey area, illegal but not punishable).
    - x0054 13y ago
      Yes, you are right, it would have been much better if we did not know what NSA does, and to what extent it violates our rights. NSA officials lying to congress, no big deal. A man standing up for what he believes and releasing the truth about a corrupt, lying, and out of control governmental organization. By god, that fucker needs to die!
    - EliRivers 13y ago
      Are we seriously suggesting letting people do this if they think the goal is just ? It seems so. I shudder to think what the consequences of that would be. This is actually a significant part of why we have trial by jury (according to some; others argue that it's just silly); they can decide that the accused did commit the crime and still return not guilty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
- CurtMonash 13y ago
  I'm a huge fan of what Snowden did, but that's not a fair summary at all. He fled out of fear of long-term incarceration, for actions that ordinarily would indeed deserve such harsh sentences.
vijucat 13y ago
> Here is the US, we're allowed to criticize the government. Mostly true, I suppose, but I remember this : "TSA loudspeakers threaten travelers with arrest for making jokes" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkWPMeLSk6M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkWPMeLSk6M
- waps 13y ago
  I think that falls under the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" rule [1]. Yes, the US has freedom of expression, and you can claim whatever you want about the government (you can even lie). But if you yell 'fire' in a theatre with 500 people and 1 small exit, or 'allahu akbar' in a TSA line, you deserve to get sued and punished for that. That is not legally considered to be freedom of expression. Personally I don't find that very controversial. If you lie to get someone else's kid into your car, that's not freedom of expression either. Lying to private security during an emergency is not freedom of expression either. Reporting a bomb threat because you have a math quiz is not freedom of expressoin. If you commit fraud on a contract, that's not freedom of expression either, whether or not "it was a joke". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_thea...
  - conorwade 13y ago
    So what you have said is that if someone says "God is great" in a TSA line they should be sued or punished. Does your opinion change if it is spoken in English? Or is it just Arabic? Should it be taken more seriously if a person is wearing a turban or not? Or maybe their skin color… does that matter?
  - x0054 13y ago
    That stupid and overused quote comes from an opinion by justice Holmes. "Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I." - Wikipedia. Read the case before you quote it. American Supreme Court has done a lot of injustices in its time. And this is one of the more egregious once.
  - 13y ago

by cbaker 13y ago

fleitz 13y ago

Didn't Snowden have to flee to China and then Russia so he could criticize his government with out fear of summary execution?

joyeuse6701 13y ago
Criticism of government has it's limits. Snowden is questionable because what he said was not public knowledge and had crippling negative effects towards security of the state, but say, expressing your criticism of government by blowing up a federal building...
- fleitz 13y ago
  Similarly to how China would react to someone talking about Tianamen Square which isn't public knowledge but knowledge of it would cause a massive shit storm that would undermine the security of the state. It's not what happened, it's the idea of one man standing up to the state that strikes fear into their hearts.
  - enko 13y ago
    I would wager that almost every educated person in China knows exactly what happened at Tiananmen Square. Certainly every chinese person I've ever really gotten to know knew all about it. The politics around it is complicated, but there is an acceptance of sorts that there's some items the government does not want dwelled upon, and that's one of them. Don't underestimate Chinese political sophistication, especially amongst what we might call the middle class (a <10% minority in China). There is a common feeling, if not outright belief, that a strong government is necessary to hold the country together, especially during its current transition period with its massive inequalities. I am no expert but my impression is that the people who do know - the middle class educated, with internet access (firewalls are trivial to get around) understand or at least play along with the idea that from a stability point of view, some information is best not fully shared. I see some interesting parallels between Chinese political censorship and the debate about the NSA revelations, by the way. Both are about concealing information of great public interest in the name of some alleged greater good. The only real difference is that the events in Tianenmen Square happened outdoors.
    - fleitz 13y ago
      I'd be happy to accept that wager, http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/199765/24-years-later-chinese-students-know-nothing-about-the-tiananmen-square-protests/ http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/199765/24-years-later-chines... Beijing University from what I understand is where China's elite school (when not schooling overseas)
- x0054 13y ago
  So releasing documents that prove that US Government is knowingly violating its citizens constitutional rights is equivalent in your mind to killing a lot of people with an explosive?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - kbenson 13y ago
    It's called a juxtaposition because the items presented are different and meant to be contrasted.
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
No
- waps 13y ago
  I keep wondering how people can possibly defend what Snowden did. He used social engineering exploits in his job as sysadmin on a large scale, then published the resulting information. He apparently even compromised personal accounts of the people he was supposed to help. Are we seriously suggesting letting people do this if they think the goal is just ? It seems so. I shudder to think what the consequences of that would be. Maybe we should create a "politically correct NSA" that spies on everyone who might be involved in unpopular politics ? How about spying on every company and violently extracting their labour practices ? I'm sure quite a few European unions wouldn't mind doing that (and at least in .be and .nl that would be a legal grey area, illegal but not punishable).
  - x0054 13y ago
    Yes, you are right, it would have been much better if we did not know what NSA does, and to what extent it violates our rights. NSA officials lying to congress, no big deal. A man standing up for what he believes and releasing the truth about a corrupt, lying, and out of control governmental organization. By god, that fucker needs to die!
  - EliRivers 13y ago
    Are we seriously suggesting letting people do this if they think the goal is just ? It seems so. I shudder to think what the consequences of that would be. This is actually a significant part of why we have trial by jury (according to some; others argue that it's just silly); they can decide that the accused did commit the crime and still return not guilty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
CurtMonash 13y ago
I'm a huge fan of what Snowden did, but that's not a fair summary at all. He fled out of fear of long-term incarceration, for actions that ordinarily would indeed deserve such harsh sentences.

vijucat 13y ago

> Here is the US, we're allowed to criticize the government. Mostly true, I suppose, but I remember this : "TSA loudspeakers threaten travelers with arrest for making jokes" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkWPMeLSk6M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkWPMeLSk6M

waps 13y ago
I think that falls under the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" rule [1]. Yes, the US has freedom of expression, and you can claim whatever you want about the government (you can even lie). But if you yell 'fire' in a theatre with 500 people and 1 small exit, or 'allahu akbar' in a TSA line, you deserve to get sued and punished for that. That is not legally considered to be freedom of expression. Personally I don't find that very controversial. If you lie to get someone else's kid into your car, that's not freedom of expression either. Lying to private security during an emergency is not freedom of expression either. Reporting a bomb threat because you have a math quiz is not freedom of expressoin. If you commit fraud on a contract, that's not freedom of expression either, whether or not "it was a joke". [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_thea...
- conorwade 13y ago
  So what you have said is that if someone says "God is great" in a TSA line they should be sued or punished. Does your opinion change if it is spoken in English? Or is it just Arabic? Should it be taken more seriously if a person is wearing a turban or not? Or maybe their skin color… does that matter?
- x0054 13y ago
  That stupid and overused quote comes from an opinion by justice Holmes. "Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I." - Wikipedia. Read the case before you quote it. American Supreme Court has done a lot of injustices in its time. And this is one of the more egregious once.
- 13y ago