Take down the Republican Party (website)

by brian d foy

Related link: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,64602,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1



The people who have been commenting on or sending me mail about my post, "Apple supporters shout down Real" have consistently disagreed that no one can be shouted down in the online world. Here's another news story though: Noah Shachtman from Wired News reports that this time it's the Republican Party that is the target.

I suppose that the same people will say that the GOP, just like Real deserves it, so it's not bad. Others will probably keep telling me that this doesn't happen because the net is an idyllic place. Well, it just isn't so.

This isn't how I think free speech is supposed to work.

8 Comments

Music
2004-08-18 19:13:55
Take down the Republican website
I have to say that Brian D Foy really looks like Bud Carville; any relation? Or are you descended from the "7 Little Foys?" Being primarily in music these days, it's the first thing one thinks of.


On the subject of flooding programs; they are, in fact, a denial of service attack. The proponents admit to being hackers. What else do you need?


Real is run out of a foreign country now, France, a not so friendly friend of late. But you can't blame them since President John Adams renegged on our treaty with France for helping us in the American Revolution. Adams put a $100,000.00 bounty on Thomas Jeffeson's head, who helped write that treaty along with George Washington, suspended the Supreme Court, the Writ of Habeas Corpus, and cheered on as the heads of King Louis and Marie Antoinette, our Revolutionary benefactors, were guillotined off.


The Bushes, whom I've supported oddly enough, seem to be the Adams family of this era, i.e., "one termers."


So I wouldn't worry about shutting down the Republican website when the Republicans who put them in office are ready to shut it down.


I've written this before: George found out for American born Queen Elinora of Jordan that Hussein has a traditional Arab vendetta against Bush because Hussein had been beaten in war. When an Arab gets beaten, they seek revenge by trying to kill the eldest son of the victor. This tradition is older than time itself. So, it winds up, that the truth was not told about why we actually went to war with Iraq. I don't blame George for going to war; if someone tried to kill me I'd go to war with them too, wouldn't we all? But telling the truth is a must when you do this. The American people would have understood and accepted this.


As far as the First Amendment, even the Supreme Court can't get it right. It was written by my ancestors, great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great grand uncle Thomas Jefferson, based on the works of John Locke. The first ten Amendments were written as unalterable Commandments, based on God's Ten Commandments. In that, they were unalterable an inalienable. The Supreme Court lost its mind on this with an idiot Justice who said you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre. Well, you can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, especially if it's on fire! What a dunce!


Flooding a site is not an act of expression, it is a coordinated warfare tactic of a Marxist lent, i.e., to destroy communication, which is the exact opposite of Free Speech.


It's like Krystalnacht on the Internet.


It's a fascist idea.


And it's not surprising that most of these Free Foundations are out of foreing countries. They'd love nothing better than to interfere in our political and legal system.


On the other hand, this could lead to Republican and Democrat head honchoes deciding to flood their sites with their own software, couldn't it?


I'd say it's about time.

pudge
2004-08-19 00:10:53
Take down the Republican website
Actually, Adams tried to make nice with France. Washington presided over the souring of the relationship between the two. When France then demanded a bribe from the Americans to resume normal relations, Adams exposed the incident, and France responded by attacking our ships in the Atlantic.


This Quasi-War lasted two years, until at last a new treaty was signed, which expired the old agreement. Adams was the good guy in this episode, cleaning up Washington's mess, refusing to roll over for the French, using the military to defend us from aggression, and finally resolving the incident by freeing us from the previous entanglements.


And I've never seen evidence of any bounty on Jefferson's head. I do know that Jefferson -- as Adams' VP -- paid a man to attack Adams in the press, calling him a monarchist and a hermaphrodite. But this man later turned on President Jefferson and accused him of an affair with Sally Hemings, so he got his.


It was Lincoln who suspended habeas corpus. Maybe you are thinking of the Alien Act, but Adams signed it because of politics. His party was angry with him for various reasons (including playing nice with France!), and it appeased them. But it only granted the President power to deport in individual cases, and he never exercised it.


Also, no, the Bill of Rights was not modeled after the Ten Commandments. If that were true, then why were there 12 articles, not 10, in the original Bill of Rights? The original second amendment was ratified later, as the 27th Amendment. The first was dropped, the third became first, the fourth second, and so on.


Did you go to public school or something?

pudge
2004-08-19 00:24:11
Take down the Republican website
Oh, and on the comparison between Adamses and Bushes: one interesting thing to note is that the younger John Adams, like the younger George Bush, did not win the so-called popular vote.


The popular vote is, of course, irrelevant, but what is not irrelevant, and what makes Adams a bit unique, is that he didn't even win the electoral vote. He came in second to Jackson, but Jackson didn't get a majority either and so it was thrown to the House, which selected Adams.

jwenting
2004-08-19 02:12:45
Take down the Republican website
Have you ever noticed that only dictatorial and anti-democratic hardwing lefties call themselves "peoples' this" or "democratic that"?


There's a "Peoples' Republic of Germany" (gone), the "Peoples' Republic of China", the "Democratic Peoples' Republic of Korea", the "Democratic Republic of Congo", and the "Democratic Party".


Kinda makes you think as to their ultimate goal, doesn't it?
Can you say "United Socialist Soviet States of the Democratic Peoples' Republic of America"?

mwalker
2004-08-19 09:06:12
You really can't see the difference?
You, a source for technical information, actually can't see the difference between posting lots of negative comments on a website, and sending a denial of service attack to take down a website?


A denial of service attack _is_ an attack on free speech (or the press, whichever), since it shuts down the medium. Posting lots and lots of negative comments just isn't the same thing.

kavka
2004-08-19 09:43:50
Egads
But how is free speech 'supposed' to work?
Can you say whatever you want without consequence? No! Can you slander another person? Technically, sure, but you run the risk of a lawsuit (again, consequences).
The problem people have with crying 'free speech' in my experience is that they take that to mean 'no consequences', and ultimately people online feel a certain juvenile thrill out of their anonymity that makes many say things that they'd never say in 'real' life. I do not believe that anyone has the right to say whatever they want, whenever they want it. To that end, if you put a sign in my front yard that I don't like, I'll remove it, just like I will remove a post on my property (site) that I do not want. It has nothing to do with free speech; you can still post your message on your own site. I think Real products stink, but I certainly understand why they wouldn't want me saying that on their own site.
jwenting
2004-08-19 23:39:34
You really can't see the difference?
Effectively, flooding a medium with so much negative comments that the real message gets lost IS a denial of service attack as it forces the operators to take down the medium in order to clean up the mess.


It's typical of leftists to have to resort to lies and criminal (veiled or otherwise) activity to get their way...

caseydk
2004-08-20 04:46:00
Take down the Republican website
Haha.


Some friends and I have been noting over the years that any organization that actually has to state in their title that they're "the People's" or "Democratic" probably isn't...