The Real Meaning of 'Internet Freedom'

You measure their commitment (to 'freedom') by observing their reaction. Now having embarrassing stuff outed about them, they try to frame the publisher for sex crimes and have him buried in jail. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the way to stop the embarrassment is to quit doing the things that embarrass them - including desperately trying to silence critics. {*}

All it means is that they have no commitment to the platitudes they mouth. My apologies to anyone who thinks Obama is cool {*}, but he is a shill doing the bidding of the Military-Industrial Complex and I doubt they gave him any choice about it. It makes perfect sense for the Fascists to scream "we're protecting your freedom" as they march into your town; we don't care what they SAY, we care what they DO, and what they DO is exactly contrary to what they SAY. So if they talk about enabling the bypassing of repressive governments, we should expect "internet in a suitcase" to arrive on American Shelves in time for July 4th so the Americans can start using them.

I think human beings are far too easily corrupted, in two senses: one, to imagine that they personally can abuse power; and two, to avoid confronting bullies if it's the least inconvenient. So we have hordes of Authoritarian-Follower types endorsing Authoritarian Leader types to cow the average citizen, and the mass of citizens who despite knowing what's being done to them say nothing about it (that the corporate media let us hear.) If they understood how concerted the campaign is that is being waged against them, they would perhaps remember that being an American means standing up to such abuses whenever and wherever they occur. But then they'll remember they'd be more comfortable sitting at home watching TV, and that if the bad people get angry at their protests, they might get hurt - so why stand up to get beaten.

Yes, why indeed. Maybe to realign ourselves with our own history? The land of the BRAVE and the FREE? Why is there a United States of America, rather than there being the British Commonwealth of the Americas? Because people back then took it personally - and felt it to be a matter of life and death. Now we're faced with incipient FASCISM in the United States! Yet many Americans will rather retreat indoors to return to the TV set, hoping that if they remain passive and ordinary enough, the axe will not bother with them.

We've been divided and conquered. Past Tense. So like an alcoholic, the first thing to do is acknowledge the sickness. Eben, you know this issue is as old as humanity - the pursuit of personal freedom for the individual while yet integrating the individual as a functional member of society. The story of wresting these freedoms from those in power goes back through recorded history. I see this as an evolution of the species, that homo sapiens has finally achieved the global consciousness to put this ideal into effect, and that our story now is the reaction by entrenched power, to overturn and refute this movement "before it's too late" for them. That is, sadly I must call it "end times", this is the clincher in our age right here right now. If we BEAT THE FASCISTS NOW, the human race will be able to live what I call the "Star Trek Future" - egalitarian and no-one in need. But if the FASCISTS WIN, we will live in "World War II" forever, in a worldscape similar to that described in "1984". And THEY KNOW THIS but WE DO NOT YET - not enough of us. So since 2000 they've been trying their damnedest to shut the lid on American politcal activism for good. They've NEVER ceased investigating Granny Groups for Peace - since this hysterical military megalomanic mindset started after the real world war 2. On YouTube now, RussiaToday, journalist arrested at SOA by Georgia cops. What the cops did was illegal and I'm sure they knew that at the time; but they knew the establishment had their back. Just watch how they comport themselves - disgusting. If ever there was unAmerican behavior, that was it and I was enraged. They should be ashamed, but nobody is able to hold them to account.

American Democracy has failed, but I fault our people for that as much as any malfeasance our officials have committed. It is time for our education to require that we participate in the political process - and to require that we as individuals acknowledge that we as individuals do not ourselves constitute society, but are members of it, both responsible to it - and responsible for shaping it. It's about time we require our representatives to do their jobs, and now that must include being able to prove how what they do benefits us. I would also insist that all conversation they have with anyone be recorded, and with few exceptions these recordings be made available to the public for all to hear. We want to know what the Lobbyist asked for and what you promised the Lobbyist. If you're going to let the NSA, CIA, FBI and Pentagon surveill us, then we suggest you live by the same "if you have nothing to hide, you won't mind being investigated" whip you've used on us.

It is rather obvious (to me) that there's a serious problem with education and intelligence in this country when the Democrats and Republicans can't be distinguished from one another - and when the American people can't remember that the party they're using to get rid of party B, is party A that they voted B in last time to get rid of (A with.) That is, although there was a time in the past when the Democratic Party really was a champion of the people (to whatever extent) - that time is over for good now. But then the conclusion is obvious: you can't vote for either party now and think it can solve anything. All you're doing is choosing the flavor of the next 4 to 8 years' worth of abuse of you. (Remember that on the margin you'll get fascism a little bit more slowly with the Democrats - but by now Both Parties Must Go, or be thoroughly - and I mean thoroughly - purged.)

Get the RICH PEOPLE OUT OF OFFICE. DO NOT VOTE for anyone who makes more than TEN TIMES WHAT YOU DO, or whose wealth is more than TEN TIMES YOURS. Why? Well, you are electing a representative, are you not? Are YOU represented by someone who could finance their own $25 million election campaign? Are YOU represented by someone who made $4 million last year running HP or similar company? So WHY DO YOU VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHOSE INTERESTS CANNOT POSSIBLY COMPREHEND YOURS? And why do you believe them when they say they can "feel your pain?" How much of it HAVE they felt? Compared to YOU. VOTE FOR SOMEONE LIKE YOU - someone who does the sort of work you do. I do not mean someone who has your bad habits! :)

STAND UP FOR YOURSELVES.

=============================================

{*} If Obama were in the least cool, he would thank Assange for keeping America Honest! (And make our thug-hounds back off.) Wouldn't we be proud of America then.

Thanks for the comment Paul,

Whereas the US version of freedom stands for choice and opportunity, elsewhere in the world freedom means just being able to voice your opinion.

I think that is why it's hard for some of us to understand the importance of a site like Wikileaks. It is not state-sponsored information. It is not corporate-sponsored information.

Yes, it may have a political agenda, but the most damming documents are important to give context to US foreign policy and our ineptude in participating in these near 10-year wars.

I find it ironic that the US military damns the exploits of Wikileaks at the same time they are deploying these Internet-in-a-suitcase networks to overcome opressive governments.

Paul, it certainly seems as if "access" is being viewed as a human right, and somewhat goes to Eben's point of freedom.  I think the freedom to access will be a right, not necessarily the functional use.

Then to the point of content/service providers, that will vary by the governing structures, government or commercial enterprise.

DHagar

"I wonder if we can ever have pure compliance with how all suppliers (i.e., government and corporations) use this freedom?  As long as we don't restrict the access side, we are still gaining freedom and clearly the internet expands the access that we previously did not have."

If access is that critical and its non-restriction vital to pormote this type of internet freedom, do you envision a situation wherein internet access may then be treated as a fundamental humnan right. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the internet has given us far more freedom opportunities than other media. 

"Since governments and corporations are not necessarily supporting the freedoms you outline, I'm curious what programs you think are working in support of those freedoms outside (inside?) the US?"

It's easier to expand the meaning of internet freedom but how attainable are these freedoms? So as part of our new meaning of internet freedom is to give everyone the opportunity to publish even classified State documents? I think from a user's point of view, we have to be realistic not to push the boundaries of internet freedom to unrealistic proportions. 

I like your broader perspective on internet freedom.  What you are proposing is unrestricted access to the demand user versus the supplier.

It seems to be that, whether planned or by result, we have the most advanced access, beyond other countries/models, in the US, even if it is not pure freedom.

I wonder if we can ever have pure compliance with how all suppliers (i.e., government and corporations) use this freedom?  As long as we don't restrict the access side, we are still gaining freedom and clearly the internet expands the access that we previously did not have.

DHagar

Eben,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on Internet freedom.

Since governments and corporations are not necessarily supporting the freedoms you outline, I'm curious what programs you think are working in support of those freedoms outside (inside?) the US?

Where are the opportunies and battle lines for ThinkerNetters to identify and make a stand?