Daily Archives: January 3, 2014

The Next HOPE (2010): Net Wars Over Free Speech, Freedom, and Secrecy
Saturday, July 17, 2010: 11:00 pm (Tesla): Following a brief lecture on Project Chanology, the question will be posed: how can we harness the power of lulzy ...

By: Channel2600

More:
The Next HOPE (2010): Net Wars Over Free Speech, Freedom, and Secrecy - Video

The Free Software Definition

The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a particular software program qualifies as free software. From time to time we revise this definition, to clarify it or to resolve questions about subtle issues. See the History section below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free software.

Free software means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.

We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a nonfree or proprietary program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; which makes the program an instrument of unjust power.

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical.

The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes specific freedoms adequate or not.

Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so.

You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.

Follow this link:
What is free software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

As the dust settles over A&Es Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertsons interview in GQ, Id like to offer a challenge to all who defended his right to wax nostalgic about how happy black people were before the civil rights era (also stating that Shintoism is basically Nazism and homosexuality is basically bestiality). To all those who rushed to Robertsons defense invoking the First Amendment of the Constitution, specifically free speech in an effort to immunize against any repercussions Id like to dare you folks to defend controversial speech that doesnt fit your worldview.

If you really believe in free speech, if you really think its in danger of being abridged, if you really believe its an absolute right of living in a free country then stand up for liberals who say dumb things, too. Rally for Alec Baldwin. How about the governor of Louisiana spend an afternoon tweeting support for Martin Bashirs alleged right to a basic cable show. Get some Change.org petitions going. Get these people back on TV!

In 2010, Sarah Palin called for President Obamas then chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to be fired because he privately used the word retarded. Palin was so offended by the word retard she equated it to the N-word (then later passionately defended the use of the N-word when Dr. Laura was the one slinging it across the airwaves). Palin cited her child with Down Syndrome as the reason Rahm should lose his job for his potty mouth. She wrote on Facebook: I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahms continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts.

I have no idea what indecent tactics to cloud efforts means but I defend her right to use her random thesaurus generator app to create fake controversies against her political enemies.

Corporations should not have to sponsor people who say things which will hurt their brand. Thats their choice. Its, in the literal sense, their business. The Constitution is about what the government can and cant do not what A&E execs can and cant do. Thats the issue I have with privatization: It erodes liberties ensured by the government.

But also, my telling you to shut up is not infringing on your constitutional rights. There is no law or ordinance against private citizens telling each other to shut their yap traps, nor should there be. The First Amendment is about the government specifically Congress not creating laws to curb speech.

That being said you the chattering class of conservative culture war mercenaries; you the Trumped-up, tooth-bleached, memo-driven, outrage industrial complex genuflectors; you the good-old-days evangelizing, controversy-touting, overly aghast gasbags: You dont actually believe in free speech. So shut up.

Why am I convinced Americas right wing is not a bastion of unfettered uninterrupted speech impunity? Ill sum it up in one name: Shirley Sherrod.

There was no 24-hour news cycle defense of Shirley Sherrod being able to say whatever she wanted without consequence. No. Her words were taken out of context edited with an agenda and she lost her job as Georgia State Director of Rural Development along with her reputation. Did anyone at Fox News stand up and raise an inaccurate interpretation of the scope of the First Amendment to defend Ms. Sherrod? No.

Theyre for selective free speech. Its like saying everyone has an absolute right to own a gun as long as youre a Republican. Then you are not actually for the absolute right to own a gun. Youre for the absolute rights of Republicans.

Read more:
OK, GOP, defend speech you don’t agree with