Your video, When The President Approves It... It Is Not Illegal!, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
And on a side note, Quantumushroom what do you have to say about the liberal media in this instance?????????????????????????????????????????????


I care not what trolls think.

>> ^CaveBear
Stealing is still stealing. It's all about intent.


I think you misunderstand the precedent and use of the law in this case. The Pirate Bay, and other torrent sites, neither steal computer files, nor maintain possession of such stolen "goods." They merely act as a catalog for user provided links (torrents) to the user held sequences of zeros and ones (files).

Suing The Pirate Bay for copyright infringement (theft) is like suing the phone book for prostitution because of "escort service" listings.

Just because Google's search engine can be used to find child pornography does not mean that Google is guilty of child pornography.

As such, it is not illegal to advertise "escort services" or catalog ASCII character combinations (words) even if they link to illegal or illicit material. No LAW exists to prohibit such an exchange, so no law could have been broken. If Sweden were to cave into the pressure of American media conglomerates and amend their laws to make cataloging words, and telephone directories, in the country illegal then TPB could be in real trouble, but that juncture is a ways off yet.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^BansheeX:
My, aren't we young and gullible.

You just made the ignore list, fuckwad.
Say hello to Quantumushroom. I'm sure you'll find you have a lot in common.
And keep pretending that you're the only person in the world who pays taxes, or that all of your taxes are wasted on "entitlements" and foolish research.
It's really the only leg you have to stand on.


Quantumushroom is an inflammatory neo-con who parrots hypocritical fiscal criticisms and pro-interventionist nonsense. What has he criticized Democrats on that Bush didn't DO when he was in office? Other than a few social issues, nothing, yet he defends the (socialist) neo-conservative party to the last.

Question is, why do you want to force others to finance things they believe are inefficient and don't want to participate in? Public schools and retirement schemes would theoretically be very easy things have opt-outs for. It's not illegal to sell education services apart from the government, or manage your own earnings for retirement. I'd prefer not to waste my time trying to convince you how Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable ponzi schemes, you've already convinced yourself of the impossible. Yet you are adamant at forcing me to participate in them with you despite my preference (after an enormous amount of research) not to devote part of my earnings there. All YOU should be concerned about, is you and those like you who believe it will work between you. Whether I believe I can save and invest my money more efficiently than the social security system shouldn't make any difference to its proponents. And the same logic goes for this fucking sea slug. A politician could come to your door with any damn reason to want money, and you'd give it to them, we already know that. But you don't own what others have or earn, so stop trying to vote in a learned minority who has doubts.

Have you even been paying attention to the stimulus packages? These people do not fucking care about you, buy a clue. If they cared about waste, Obama would have used his veto pen umpteen times already instead of verbally admonishing earmarks and the undeserved bonuses begotten by giving billions of stolen money to idiots who drove their companies into the ground. If they cared, they wouldn't brazenly state it out loud that you don't:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEfICUoWKBw

>> ^Farhad2000:
The debate of freedom of speech and censorship is on going, am not parroting one line or the other. I believe in freedom of speech myself and have disagreed with the inane protests that occurred during the publishing cartoons, but the question has to be raised when you have a film that is negative of an entire religion while any similar criticism is labeled as anti-semetic when applied to the Jewish community. The hypocrisy is there.

Of course it's hypocritical. And I decry the suppression of Mein Kampf just as much as Fitna. That's my point. It's absurd to outlaw stupid or unpleasant ideas, because usually the arguments for them are so pathetic that they should be easy to dismiss. That they cause diviseness is an even worse reason for censorship. Imposed homogeneity is far worse - and terribly boring. When unpleasant ideas are not so easily dismissed, it is even more important to guard their right to be expressed. It was certainly more socially cohesive for the Vatican to outlaw the ideas of Copernicus and Galileo, but obviously very wrong for it to do so.


Furthermore society censors ideas because it finds them offensive and detrimental to social cohesion, I don't think you would find many defending the freedom of speech of people burning crosses, wearing KKKs masks and calling black people the n word, using Nazi symbols in German or denying the holocaust.

Cross burning is not an act of free speech - it is an act of violent intimidation (not to mention arson). Wearing KKK gear isn't outlawed in the U.S., and it may surprise you to learn that the ACLU itself has fought for the rights of even those loonies to be able to assemble or march in various towns. Saying nigger is clearly not illegal - ever listen to gangsta rap?

Obviously there are limits to free speech. Directly inciting violence/riots, causing dangerous panic ("Fire!" in a theater) and libelous speech are all outlawed, but not because the ideas contained in such speech are "bad". They are outlawed because they can directly cause damage to people and property. I agree that stuff like Fitna falls somewhere in that grey area in that it could cause people to commit violent acts, but it does not itself call for violence upon Muslims.

The international Red Cross said Tuesday that Israel has fired white phosphorus shells in its offensive in the Gaza Strip, but has no evidence to suggest it is being used improperly or illegally.

The comments came after a human rights organization accused the Jewish state of using the incendiary agent, which ignites when it strikes the skin and burns straight through or until it is cut off from oxygen. It can cause horrific injuries.


White phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon.

"In some of the strikes in Gaza it's pretty clear that phosphorus was used," Herby told The Associated Press. "But it's not very unusual to use phosphorus to create smoke or illuminate a target. We have no evidence to suggest it's being used in any other way."

In response, the IDF said Tuesday that it "wishes to reiterate that it uses weapons in compliance with international law, while strictly observing that they be used in accordance with the type of combat and its characteristics."

Herby said that using phosphorus to illuminate a target or create smoke is legitimate under international law, and that there was no evidence the Jewish state was intentionally using phosphorus in a questionable way, such as burning down buildings or consciously putting civilians at risk.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/red-cross-israels-use-white-phosphorus-not-illegal

You guys haven't been paying attention: when the president does it, that means it is not illegal.

>> ^imstellar28:
yeah, and theres no structural/legal reason why we can't allow multiple contracts or more than two people anymore than there is a reason we can't allow complimentary genitals. this is about who you can make a contract with, and what the contract can state.

While I have no issue with the idea of creating institutions which can handle that, we have no such institutions, saying we could, in no way addresses the fact that we don't. It would require a major restructuring to allow group or parallel marriages, and while I have no ethical problem with them I don't want the marriages subsidies we have, so I can't fathom creating a whole new institution which will provide more.

To say that the institution we have should be applied equally is not inconsistent with wanting these institutions changed or abolished in the ideal case.

the government's proper role is to enforce contracts, not dictate their terms. that is why gay marriage should be legal, and it is also why polygamy should be legal.

They are not illegal, they are just not officially recognized, that's the point you don't seem to get. Sleep with whomever you want, under whatever conditions you desire, and call it whatever you desire. You just don't get a gov license or subsidy unless you can fit into the existing institution.

It's not illegal to say negative things about homosexuals here in Canada, we just don't have as many self-righteous religious assholes as down south.

Oh yes, and our society has digressed into a state of total chaos since we made same-sex marriage legal. ABORTIONS FOR ALL!

Important video for everyone to watch. Interesting that the cop in this case was of Chinese origin - he's probably primed to self-destruct if he allows too much democracy.
Happy ending though, as he wanders off agitated. Plus we learn, once again, that photography in public places is not illegal.

>> ^MrConrads:
I fail to understand why if it is so imperative to have a free and unbiased press in order to have a healthy democracy why we do not fight, nay, DEMAND such a thing. If nothing else the last 8 years have proven this need. In my opinion it has been clearly shown that a country becomes more divided and obtuse rather than informed when living under a press that operates like it has here in America. We need to trust those who work in the field of journalism to uphold the ideals of the Constitution and do their duty just as much as any president or senator. So why does there seem to be this lack of oversight into one of the most important aspects of a democracy? Lawyers must swear an oath to the Constitution to uphold the law as it is written, and if they violate that oath they are disbarred. Presidents, Senators, Police, Doctors, and many other professions that are given the duty of upholding the common good must all live by similar ethics, so why not journalists and reporters? I believe that any and all who wish to work in such a profession should be sworn in to uphold the constitution, inform the public to the best of their abilities, and remain completely unbiased. If they cannot uphold these ideals they should be replaced by someone who can, that is if we want this grand experiment to work.


I agree with you in theory. However, I think it gets a bit touchy when private corporations are involved. All of these news outlets are privatized, so they all have their own agenda - their own spin on issues to target and reach a specific segment of the population. One of the main problems is that these private institutions see news as just another tv show/article/blog - it's all about ratings and corporate sponsorship (i.e. money). It's no surprise that the most unbiased news media out there is socialized (NPR) - they don't bow down to the mighty dollar coming from the fist of a corporation.

Notice also that your other examples of professions that are given the duty of upholding the common good are either government institutions or socialized (public officials and police officers). The doctor example is a touchy one, and in most industrialized nations, these would be socialized too - the reason they are held to such a high ethical standard in the US as opposed to journalists is that they're job is seen by the public as a more integral part of the human condition (protecting life). It's interesting though that most Americans support nationalizing health care in the US - in effect removing a majority of the greed, corporate motive, and lack of ethics out of the system.

Setting up any kind of ethical institution based on capitalistic principles is counter-intuitive. Ethics are only followed by corporations as long as it improves the bottom line.

If we're going to expect journalists and the private news media to hold themselves to an 'ethical standard', then we're going to have to:

a) reduce the privatization of the news media,
b) remove the rating system / corporate sponsorship from news programs,
c) realize that our society must start taking the news media as a serious ethical issue in the line of doctors/surgeons holding an ethical standard.

However, its a very fine line between preventing unethical behavior in an institution and upholding the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Lawyers and government officials lie all the time and get away with it. So do journalists, reporters, and news corporations. Unfortunately, it's not illegal to be biased in these professions. That oath of which you speak seems to be less and less followed as privatization increases more and more.

</rant>

Dont forget to vote for your own video, its not illegal to show yourself some love on the sift

The first amendment has been evaluated by the supreme court on numerous occasion in the last 75 years. It has evolved in its interpretation as to what free speech really means and what limits free speech bears. Obviously if McCain rented the property, she could be asked to leave, and failure to leave could result in arrest for trespassing. But would she have a right to protest under any circumstance?

NO, because time PLACE and manner are all very important. There are limits to when where and how you can say just about anything. I can say obscene things all I want in my home, but saying them in a public place would lead to my arrest. In this case her protest put her in close proximity to those she protest against. If I were mccain and trying to avoid a lawsuit because someone at my event assaulted a protester, I would certainly remove the protester. Abortion clinics are open to the public but your conduct must comply with the wishes of the property owner, ie you can't take your dead baby sign into the lobby.

If this were city property that was rented out to a private interest (which it was, read the link above to the news article) those same rules apply. The city is certainly entitled to rent out property to private groups. And those groups can selectively choose who may enter them. For example, I could rent that same location and make "white males only" as a requirement for attendance. There is nothing illegal about that. Racist sexist and immoral, but not illegal. Do you find it odd that they brought a video camera to record the expulsion from the event? I don't, they knew in advance they would be asked to leave this event. Do you generally go to events designed for people you disagree with and not expect conflict?

I haven't seen the KKK at any Obama rally's, for a similar reason I would guess. I am definitely not a klan member, but It would be interesting to put on the garb and record what happened to me when I went to the rally. I could make an internet video and create a buzz about how the communist liberals don't respect my rights and completely ignore the fact it was a private event with conditional requirement for attendance. It would be similar to this video I expect with the exception the posts would be about communist instead of fascist.

Fade, I think you might find some interesting points about the war by Christopher Hitchens here:

http://www.videosift.com/video/Hitchens-Vs-Hitchens-2

The war is not illegal and every reason that has been given to call it so has been proven false. Absence of WMDs does not equal illegal war. The war was launched with congressional approval. Iraq had lost it's sovereignty years ago after commiting genocide. The Iraqi government harbored known terrorists and provided diplomatic passports. The list goes on. War is a terrible thing no matter what the reasons. However, this war is not illegal or without merit. The soldiers in this clip are the exception, not the rule.

*edit*

Here's another side if you want to continue to base your views off of short clips

http://www.videosift.com/video/Soldier-saves-abused-Iraqi-dog

I see you found another video to make your point since the last one was a dupe. The war is not illegal, everyone is not complicit in some evil scheme, and the actions of the few in sensational YouTube clips should not be enough to make people think that every soldier/Marine is not worthy of support. Do you have any idea how much of a shit storm this unit is in for if they are identified by the military? This is not average or acceptable behavior. I can only imagine the effects if YouTube had existed during any previous wars to showcase random idiocy.