marriage
From the UK, the Stockport Express reports that the British government is denying a Wiccan temple the right to declare itself a place of worship. A letter from the General Register Office to high priestess Sandra Davis says that Wicca is "incompatible with the ancient Places of Worship Act 1855." It goes on to say that Wicca doesn't "involve worship of a supreme being so is not legitimate."
Davis, and the rest of the rather large Wiccan community in her area, are understandably outraged. She's filing an appeal with the Home Office, in hopes that the decision will be reversed.
Although the story includes the phrase "Lord and Lordess", which is one I've never heard used before, it seems like Davis may have just cause for complaint. Wicca does indeed honor deity, although in most cases it's a pair of supreme beings, rather than just one. From what I've been able to gather with a little bit of Google-fu, the Places of Worship Registration Act is more of a paperwork sort of thing, rather than having any specific doctrinal requirements. Do any of our UK readers know if there's a precedent for this? Are there other government-recognized Wiccan temples in the United Kingdom?
Rights @ MindSay 
[ Rights Slideshow | Browse Tags ]
FATAL VISION: The Deeper Evil Behind The Detainee Bill, by Chris Floyd
AND NOW THE APOCALYPSE!
Living In A World Full Of Lies
International A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
Click Here to A.ct N.ow and Ask
S.top W.ar and E.nd R.acism!
"Dissent is the ESSENTIAL
aspect of patriotism"!
--Thomas Jefferson
[PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: All entries are in descending order by the date(s) they were posted, and in some cases in ascending order by the date(s) written.]
The American flag, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights have now been torn to shreads. "Rest In Peace (RIP)", Freedom and Liberty. RIP, "the experiment in democracy".
We have watched in dumb amazement (those of us who have realized what is really going on, that is) as for the past five years the Bill of Rights, the U.S. Constitution, liberty, and freedom have been step by step, systematically eviscerated, first with the so-called "USA P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act (those who criticize it supposedly aren't patriots)", and then with the latest afront on domestic freedom and liberty, the "Military Commissions Act of 2006," also known among other names as the "Detainee Bill", passed by an almost completely cowed Senate in the dead of night on Friday, the 29th day of September, 2006.
Now NONE OF US is safe. Not civil libertarians, not dissenters, not protesters of even the mildest variety (as virtually everything is now considered "terrorism"), and not even those blind worshippers of the U.S. government or its agents; because, if someone decides they don't like you, or gets jealous or resentful of you, all they need do is CLAIM you criticized the government, defended "rights", felt that certain force used against someone was excessive, or committed some other equally innocent "perceived threatening conduct" (some of the federal government's favorite wording that they now use for those who exercise their inalienable, immutable, inviolable First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Belief and Dissent to disagree with their government), and you will very likely be "disappeared" into custody, stripped of U.S. citizenship, and be interro(r)gated, intimidated, humiliated, terrorized, tortured, and/or very possibly murdered, all without "Due Process of Law" under the Fifth and Fourteen Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, or a fair, unbiased hearing, access to an impartial lawyer, court, judge, or jury; and, if you live through this process, you could be kept secretly imprisoned forever without access to ANYONE important to you. This is NO exageration WHATSOVER; and, if "We, The People" don't repeal this horrific law, or the U.S. Supreme court doesn't overturn it, this is the END of our Republic, of Democracy, and of ALL Liberty and Freedom in "the land of the free, and the home of the brave", and THE END OF ALL protection(s) from a capricious, out of control, dictatorial government.
So, you see, the inviolable freedoms and liberties that we have so taken for granted, and that most Americans now have so little understanding of the supreme importance of, much to our grave detriment, were not overturned by "Islamo-Fascist terrorists", nor by protesting, dissenting U.S. citizens, nor journalists critical of the government, nor any other equally illusory, contrived, manufactured, engineered, and/or U.S.-government-created, state-sponsored "enemy(ies)", agents, assets, patsies, bogeymen, infiltra(i)tors, disinfo-agents, detractors, distractors, naysayers, actors, shills, trolls, hackers, informers, spies, entrappers, and/or agents provocateur, etc., but this act of true terrorism was carried out by the very people in our own government who are literally sworn to uphold and protect the U.S. Constitution "from all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC", including from THEMSELVES and other tyrannical, 'absolutely despotic' (to loosely quote the Declaration of Independence) forces in that very government; and the vast majority of them have COMPLETELY failed us and thrown EVERY SINGLE PERSON in this great country OF OURS into limitless danger and threat(s) by that government to the very safety of EACH AND EVERY ONE OF OUR LIVES.
The following is very likely the best article on this subject that has thus far been written, at least as far as I am aware; and, therefore, I share it with you at this time to further clarify just how truly catastrophic, life-threatening and consequential the situation we are now in actually is for every single man, woman, child, and little baby in this entire country, and ultimately in this entire world. The world-renowned True Journalist who wrote this great article, Chris Floyd, is also a True Hero and an exceedingly courageous human being for writing such an accurate article of warning to world-citizens planet-wide, and such an accurate portrayal of the extremely dire situation the U.S. and the world are in as a direct result of the subject matter it covers, as follows:
Print This Story 
E-mail This Story
Read more of Chris Floyd's columns.
FATAL VISION: THE DEEPER EVIL
BEHIND THE DETAINEE BILL
("Big Brother" Government
Is Now Here In The U.S.)
By Chris Floyd, T.O. UK Reporter
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday, 3 October 2006
[Copyright (c) 2006 in the
U.S.A. and Internationally
by t r u t h o u t (.org),
Empire Burlesque (Chris' blog)
and/or Chris Floyd.
All rights reserved.]
(This is a slightly revised version of a piece that first appeared on the Oct. 2nd edition of Truthout.org .)
There is no week nor day nor hour when tyranny may not enter upon this country -- if the people lose their confidence in themselves -- and lose their roughness and spirit of defiance.
--- Walt Whitman
I.
It was a dark hour indeed (on Friday, September 29th, 2006) when the United States Senate voted to end the constitutional republic and transform the country into a "Leader-State," giving the president and his agents the power to capture, torture and imprison forever anyone -- American citizens included -- whom they arbitrarily decide is an "enemy combatant." This also includes those who merely give "terrorism" some kind of "support," defined so vaguely that many experts say it could encompass legal advice, innocent gifts to charities or even political opposition to US government policy within its draconian strictures.
All of this is bad enough -- a sickening and cowardly surrender of liberty not seen in a major Western democracy since the Enabling Act passed by the German Reichstag in March 1933. But it is by no means the full extent of our degradation. In reality, the darkness is deeper, and more foul, than most people imagine. For in addition to the dictatorial powers of seizure and torment given by Congress on Thursday to George W. Bush -- powers he had already seized and exercised for five years anyway, even without this fig leaf of sham legality -- there is a far more sinister imperial right that Bush has claimed -- and used -- openly, without any demur or debate from Congress at all: ordering the "extrajudicial killing" of anyone on earth that he and his deputies decide -- arbitrarily, without charges, court hearing, formal evidence, or appeal -- is an "enemy combatant."
That's right; from the earliest days of the Terror War -- September 17, 2001, to be exact -- Bush has claimed the peremptory power of life and death over the entire world. If he says you're an enemy of America, you are. If he wants to imprison you and torture you, he can. And if he decides you should die, he'll kill you. This is not hyperbole, liberal paranoia, or "conspiracy theory": it's simply a fact, reported by the mainstream media, attested by senior administration figures, recorded in official government documents -- and boasted about by the president himself, in front of Congress and a national television audience.
And although the Republic-snuffing act just passed by Congress does not directly address Bush's royal prerogative of murder, it nonetheless strengthens it and enshrines it in law. For the measure sets forth clearly that the designation of an "enemy combatant" is left solely to the executive branch; neither Congress nor the courts have any say in the matter. When this new law is coupled with the existing "Executive Orders" authorizing "lethal force" against arbitrarily designated "enemy combatants," it becomes, quite literally, a license to kill -- with the seal of Congressional approval.
How arbitrary is this process by which all our lives and liberties are now governed? Dave Niewert at Orcinus has unearthed a remarkable admission of its totally capricious nature. In an December 2002 story in the Washington Post, then-Solicitor General Ted Olson described the anarchy at the heart of the process with admirable frankness:
"[There is no] requirement that the executive branch spell out its criteria for determining who qualifies as an enemy combatant," Olson argues.
"'There won't be 10 rules that trigger this or 10 rules that end this,' Olson said in the interview. 'There will be judgments and instincts and evaluations and implementations that have to be made by the executive that are probably going to be different from day to day, depending on the circumstances.'"
In other words, what is safe to do or say today might imperil your freedom or your life tomorrow. You can never know if you are on the right side of the law, because the "law" is merely the whim of the Leader and his minions: their "instincts" determine your guilt or innocence, and these flutterings in the gut can change from day to day. This radical uncertainty is the very essence of despotism -- and it is now, formally and officially, the guiding principle of the United States government.
And underlying this edifice of tyranny is the prerogative of presidential murder. Perhaps the enormity of this monstrous perversion of law and morality has kept it from being fully comprehended. It sounds unbelievable to most people: a president ordering hits like a Mafia don? But that is our reality, and has been for five years. To overcome what seems to be a widespread cognitive dissonance over this concept, we need only examine the record -- a record, by the way, taken entirely from publicly available sources in the mass media. There's nothing secret or contentious about it, nothing that any ordinary citizen could not know -- if they choose to know it.
II.
Six days after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush signed a "presidential finding" authorizing the CIA to kill those individuals whom he had marked for death as terrorists. This in itself was not an entirely radical innovation; Bill Clinton's White House legal team had drawn up memos asserting the president's right to issue "an order to kill an individual enemy of the United States in self-defense," despite the legal prohibitions against assassination, the Washington Post reported in October 2001. The Clinton team based this ruling on the "inherent powers" of the "Commander in Chief" -- that mythical, ever-elastic construct that Bush has evoked over and over to defend his own unconstitutional usurpations.
The practice of "targeted killing" was apparently never used by Clinton, however; despite the pro-assassination memos, Clinton followed the traditional presidential practice of bombing the hell out of a bunch of civilians whenever he wanted to lash out at some recalcitrant leader or international outlaw -- as in his bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in 1998, or the two massive strikes he launched against Iraq in 1993 and 1998, or indeed the death and ruin that was deliberately inflicted on civilian infrastructure in Serbia during that nation's collective punishment for the crimes of Slobodan Milosevic. Here, was following the example set by George H.W. Bush, who killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Panamanian civilians in his illegal arrest of Manuel Noriega in 1988, and Ronald Reagan, who killed Moamar Gadafy's adopted 2-year-old daughter and 100 other civilians in a punitive strike on Libya in 1986.
Junior Bush, of course, was about to outdo all those blunderbuss strokes with his massive air attacks on Afghanistan, which killed thousands of civilians, and the later orgy of death and destruction in Iraq. But he also wanted the power to kill individuals at will. At first, the assassination program was restricted to direct orders from the president aimed at specific targets, as suggested by the Clinton memos. But soon the arbitrary power of life and death was delegated to agents in the field, after Bush signed orders allowing CIA assassins to kill targets without seeking presidential approval for each attack, the Washington Post reported in December 2002. Nor was it necessary any longer for the president to approve each new name added to the target list; the "security organs" could designate "enemy combatants" and kill them as they saw fit. However, Bush was always keen to get the details about the agency's wetwork, administration officials assured the Post.
The first officially confirmed use of this power was the killing of an American citizen, along with several foreign nationals, by a CIA drone missile in Yemen on November 3, 2002. A similar strike occurred on December 4, 2005, when a CIA missile destroyed a house and purportedly killed Abu Hamza Rabia, a suspected al-Qaeda figure. But the only bodies found at the site were those of two children, the houseowner's son and nephew, Reuters reports. The grieving father denied any connection to terrorism. An earlier CIA strike on another house missed Rabia but killed his wife and children, Pakistani officials reported.
However, there is simply no way of knowing at this point how many people have been killed by American agents operating outside all judicial process. Most of the assassinations are carried out in secret: quietly, professionally. As a Pentagon document uncovered by the New Yorker in December 2002 revealed, the death squads must be "small and agile," and "able to operate clandestinely, using a full range of official and non-official cover arrangements to ... enter countries surreptitiously."
What's more, there are strong indications that the Bush administration has outsourced some of the contracts to outside operators. In the original Post story about the assassinations -- in those first heady weeks after 9/11, when administration officials were much more open about "going to the dark side," as Cheney boasted on national television -- Bush insiders told the paper that "it is also possible that the instrument of targeted killings will be foreign agents, the CIA's term for nonemployees who act on its behalf.
Here we find a deadly echo of the "rendition" program that has sent so many captives to torture pits in Syria, Egypt and elsewhere -- including many whose innocence has been officially established, such as the Canadian businessman Maher Arar, German national Khalid El-Masri, UK native Mozzam Begg and many others. They had been subjected to imprisonment and torture despite their innocence, because of intelligence "mistakes." How many have fallen victim to Bush's hit squads on similar shaky grounds?
So here we are. Congress has just entrenched the principle of Bush's "unitary executive" dictatorship into law; and it is this principle that undergirds the assassination program. As I wrote in December, it's hard to believe that any genuine democracy would accept a claim by its leader that he could have anyone killed simply by labeling them an "enemy." It's hard to believe that any adult with even the slightest knowledge of history or human nature could countenance such unlimited, arbitrary power, knowing the evil it is bound to produce. Yet this is exactly what the great and good in America have done.
But this should come as no surprise. They have known about it all along, and have not only countenanced Bush's death squad, but even celebrated it. I'll end with one more passage from that December article, which sadly is even more apt for our degraded reality today. It was a depiction of the one of the most revolting scenes in recent American history: Bush's state of the Union address in January 2003, delivered live to the nation during the final warmongering frenzy before the rape of Iraq:
Trumpeting his successes in the Terror War, Bush claimed that "more than 3,000 suspected terrorists" had been arrested worldwide -- "and many others have met a different fate." His face then took on the characteristic leer, the strange, sickly half-smile it acquires whenever he speaks of killing people: "Let's put it this way. They are no longer a problem."
In other words, the suspects -- and even Bush acknowledged they were only suspects -- had been murdered. Lynched. Killed by agents operating unsupervised in that shadow world where intelligence, terrorism, politics, finance and organized crime meld together in one amorphous, impenetrable mass. Killed on the word of a dubious informer, perhaps: a tortured captive willing to say anything to end his torment, a business rival, a personal foe, a bureaucrat looking to impress his superiors, a paid snitch in need of cash, a zealous crank pursuing ethnic, tribal or religious hatreds -- or any other purveyor of the garbage data that is coin of the realm in the shadow world.
Bush proudly held up this hideous system as an example of what he called "the meaning of American justice." And the assembled legislators ... applauded. Oh, how they applauded! They roared with glee at the leering little man's bloodthirsty, B-movie machismo. They shared his sneering contempt for law -- our only shield, however imperfect, against the blind, brute, ignorant, ape-like force of raw power. Not a single voice among them was raised in protest against this tyrannical machtpolitik: not that night, not the next day, not ever.
And now, in September 2006, we know they will never raise that protest. Oh, a few Democrats stood up at the last minute on Thursday to posture nobly about the dangers of the detainee bill -- but only when they knew that it was certain to pass, when they had already given up their one weapon against it, the filibuster, in exchange for permission from their Republican masters to offer amendments that they also knew would fail. Had they been offering such speeches since October 2001, when the lineaments of Bush's presidential tyranny were already clear -- or at any other point during the systematic dismantling of America's liberties over the past five years -- these fine words might have had some effect.
Now the killing will go on. The tyranny that has entered upon the country will grow stronger, more brazen; the darkness will deepen. Whitman, thou should'st be living at this hour; America has need of thee. (Subtitle and/or emphasis added by Wolf Britain.)
Chris Floyd is an American journalist residing in the UK. His work has appeared in print and online in venues all over the world, including The Nation, Counterpunch, Columbia Journalism Review, the Christian Science Monitor, Il Manifesto, the Moscow Times, and many others. He is the author of Empire Burlesque: High Crimes and Low Comedy in the Bush Imperium
________
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.
Print This Story E-mail This Story
BRITISH GOVERNMENT AND THE RIGHTS OF WICCANS
It would seem to me that the British government needs to google, some and learn about Wicca, to say that this religion does not worship a Supreme Being, is outrageous and sadly funny, I think they best come up with another reason that is based on fact.
blessings
British Government Denies Wiccan Temple
Monday June 23, 2008
'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights
These kinds of things are always touchy. Technically, once you log on, you have left your country of origin. Most would assume it is like taking a boat to the middle of the ocean, but it isn't. Like your job, the internet isn't a democracy.
'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights
By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer
Sun Jul 6, 2:17 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080706/ap_on_hi_te/tec_disappearing_freedoms
NEW YORK - Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer generally won't eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or provocative.
Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.
Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that's controversial but otherwise legal. Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors.
The governmental role that companies play online is taking on greater importance as their services — from online hangouts to virtual repositories of photos and video — become more central to public discourse around the world. It's a fallout of the Internet's market-driven growth, but possible remedies, including government regulation, can be worse than the symptoms.
Dutch photographer Maarten Dors met the limits of free speech at Yahoo Inc.'s photo-sharing service, Flickr, when he posted an image of an early-adolescent boy with disheveled hair and a ragged T-shirt, staring blankly with a lit cigarette in his mouth.
Without prior notice, Yahoo deleted the photo on grounds it violated an unwritten ban on depicting children smoking. Dors eventually convinced a Yahoo manager that — far from promoting smoking — the photo had value as a statement on poverty and street life in Romania. Yet another employee deleted it again a few months later.
"I never thought of it as a photo of a smoking kid," Dors said. "It was just of a kid in Romania and how his life is. You can never make a serious documentary if you always have to think about what Flickr will delete."
There may be legitimate reasons to take action, such as to stop spam, security threats, copyright infringement and child pornography, but many cases aren't clear-cut, and balancing competing needs can get thorny.
"We often get caught in the middle between a rock and a hard place," said Christine Jones, general counsel with service provider GoDaddy.com Inc. "We're obviously sensitive to the freedoms we have, particularly in this country, to speak our mind, (yet) we want to be good corporate citizens and make the Internet a better and safer place."
In Dors' case, the law is fully with Yahoo. Its terms of service, similar to those of other service providers, gives Yahoo "sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse or remove any content." Service providers aren't required to police content, but they aren't prohibited from doing so.
While mindful of free speech and other rights, Yahoo and other companies say they must craft and enforce guidelines that go beyond legal requirements to protect their brands and foster safe, enjoyable communities — ones where minors may be roaming.
Guidelines help "engender a positive community experience," one to which users will want to return, said Anne Toth, Yahoo's vice president for policy.
Dors ultimately got his photo restored a second time, and Yahoo has apologized, acknowledging its community managers went too far.
Heather Champ, community director for Flickr, said the company crafts policies based on feedback from users and trains employees to weigh disputes fairly and consistently, though mistakes can happen.
"We're humans," she said. "We're pretty transparent when we make mistakes. We have a record of being good about stepping up and fessing up."
But that underscores another consequence of having online commons controlled by private corporations. Rules aren't always clear, enforcement is inconsistent, and users can find content removed or accounts terminated without a hearing. Appeals are solely at the service provider's discretion.
Users get caught in the crossfire as hundreds of individual service representatives apply their own interpretations of corporate policies, sometimes imposing personal agendas or misreading guidelines.
To wit: Verizon Wireless barred an abortion-rights group from obtaining a "short code" for conducting text-messaging campaigns, while LiveJournal suspended legitimate blogs on fiction and crime victims in a crackdown on pedophilia. Two lines criticizing President Bush disappeared from AT&T Inc.'s webcast of a Pearl Jam concert. All three decisions were reversed only after senior executives intervened amid complaints.
Inconsistencies and mysteries behind decisions lead to perceptions that content is being stricken merely for being unpopular.
"As we move more of our communications into social networks, how are we limiting ourselves if we can't see alternative points of view, if we can't see the things that offend us?" asked Fred Stutzman, a University of North Carolina researcher who tracks online communities.
First Amendment protections generally do not extend to private property in the physical world, allowing a shopping mall to legally kick out a customer wearing a T-shirt with a picture of a smoking child.
With online services becoming greater conduits than shopping malls for public communications, however, some advocacy groups believe the federal government needs to guarantee open access to speech. That, of course, could also invite meddling by the government, the way broadcasters now face indecency and other restrictions that are criticized as vague.
Others believe companies shouldn't police content at all, and if they do, they should at least make clearer the rules and the mechanisms for appeal.
"Vagueness does not inspire the confidence of people and leaves room for gaming the system by outside groups," said Lauren Weinstein, a veteran computer scientist and Internet activist. "When the rules are clear and the grievance procedures are clear, then people know what they are working with and they at least have a starting point in urging changes in those rules."
But Marjorie Heins, director of the Free Expression Policy Project, questions whether the private sector is equipped to handle such matters at all. She said written rules mean little when service representatives applying them "tend to be tone-deaf. They don't see context."
At least when a court order or other governmental action is involved, "there's more of a guarantee of due process protections," said Robin Gross, executive director of the civil-liberties group IP Justice. With a private company, users' rights are limited to the service provider's contractual terms of services.
Jonathan Zittrain, a Harvard professor who recently published a book on threats to the Internet's openness, said parties unhappy with sensitive materials online are increasingly aware they can simply pressure service providers and other intermediaries.
"Going after individuals can be difficult. They can be hard to find. They can be hard to sue," Zittrain said. "Intermediaries still have a calculus where if a particular Web site is causing a lot of trouble ... it may not be worth it to them."
Unable to stop purveyors of child pornography directly, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo recently persuaded three major access providers to disable online newsgroups that distribute such images. But rather than cut off those specific newsgroups, all three decided to reduce administrative hassles by also disabling thousands of legitimate groups devoted to TV shows, the New York Mets and other topics.
Gordon Lyon, who runs a site that archives e-mail postings on security, found his domain name suddenly deactivated because one entry contained MySpace passwords obtained by hackers.
He said MySpace went directly to domain provider GoDaddy, which effectively shut down his entire site, rather than contact him to remove the one posting or replace passwords with asterisks. GoDaddy justified such drastic measures, saying that waiting to reach Lyon would have unnecessarily exposed MySpace passwords, including those to profiles of children.
Meanwhile, in response to complaints it would not specify, Network Solutions LLC decided to suspend a Web hosting account that Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders was using to promote a movie that criticizes the Quran — before the movie was even posted and without the company finding any actual violation of its rules.
Service providers say unhappy customers can always go elsewhere, but choice is often limited.
Many leading services, particularly online hangouts like Facebook and News Corp.'s MySpace or media-sharing sites such as Flickr and Google Inc.'s YouTube, have acquired a cachet that cannot be replicated. To evict a user from an online community would be like banishing that person to the outskirts of town.
Other sites "don't have the critical mass. No one would see it," said Scott Kerr, a member of the gay punk band Kids on TV, which found its profile mysteriously deleted from MySpace last year. "People know that MySpace is the biggest site that contains music."
MySpace denies engaging in any censorship and says profiles removed are generally in response to complaints of spam and other abuses. GoDaddy also defends its commitment to speech, saying account suspensions are a last resort.
Few service providers actively review content before it gets posted and usually take action only in response to complaints.
In that sense, Flickr, YouTube and other sites consider their reviews "checks and balances" against any community mob directed at unpopular speech — YouTube has pointedly refused to delete many video clips tied to Muslim extremists, for instance, because they didn't specifically contain violence or hate speech.
Still, should these sites even make such rules? And how can they ensure the guidelines are consistently enforced?
YouTube has policies against showing people "getting hurt, attacked or humiliated," banning even clips OK for TV news shows, but how is YouTube to know whether a video clip shows real violence or actors portraying it? Either way, showing the video is legal and may provoke useful discussions on brutality.
"Balancing these interests raises very tough issues," YouTube acknowledged in a statement.
Unwilling to play the role of arbiter, the group-messaging service Twitter has resisted pressure to tighten its rules.
"What counts as name-calling? What counts as making fun of someone in a way that's good-natured?" said Jason Goldman, Twitter's director of program management. "There are sites that do employ teams of people that
do that investigation ... but we feel that's a job we wouldn't do well."
Other sites are trying to be more transparent in their decisions.
Online auctioneer eBay Inc., for instance, has elaborated on its policies over the years, to the extent that sellers can drill down to where they can ship hatching eggs (U.S. addresses only) and what items related to natural disasters are permissible (they must have "substantial social, artistic or political value"). Hypothetical examples accompany each policy.
LiveJournal has recently eased restrictions on blogging. The new harassment clause, for instance, expressly lets members state negative feelings or opinions about another, and parodies of public figures are now permitted despite a ban on impersonation. Restrictions on nudity specifically exempt non-sexualized art and breast feeding.
The site took the unusual step of soliciting community feedback and setting up an advisory board with prominent Internet scholars such as Danah Boyd and Lawrence Lessig and two user representatives elected in May.
The effort comes just a year after a crackdown on pedophilia backfired. LiveJournal suspended hundreds of blogs that dealt with child abuse and sexual violence, only to find many were actually fictional works or discussions meant to protect children. The company's chief executive issued a public apology.
Community backlash can restrain service providers, but as Internet companies continue to consolidate and Internet users spend more time using vendor-controlled platforms such as mobile devices or social-networking sites, the community's power to demand free speech and other rights diminishes.
Weinstein, the veteran computer scientist, said that as people congregate at fewer places, "if you're knocked off one of those, in a lot of ways you don't exist."
'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights
By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer
Sun Jul 6, 2:17 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080706/ap_on_hi_te/tec_disappearing_freedoms
NEW YORK - Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer generally won't eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or provocative.
Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.
Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that's controversial but otherwise legal. Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors.
The governmental role that companies play online is taking on greater importance as their services — from online hangouts to virtual repositories of photos and video — become more central to public discourse around the world. It's a fallout of the Internet's market-driven growth, but possible remedies, including government regulation, can be worse than the symptoms.
Dutch photographer Maarten Dors met the limits of free speech at Yahoo Inc.'s photo-sharing service, Flickr, when he posted an image of an early-adolescent boy with disheveled hair and a ragged T-shirt, staring blankly with a lit cigarette in his mouth.
Without prior notice, Yahoo deleted the photo on grounds it violated an unwritten ban on depicting children smoking. Dors eventually convinced a Yahoo manager that — far from promoting smoking — the photo had value as a statement on poverty and street life in Romania. Yet another employee deleted it again a few months later.
"I never thought of it as a photo of a smoking kid," Dors said. "It was just of a kid in Romania and how his life is. You can never make a serious documentary if you always have to think about what Flickr will delete."
There may be legitimate reasons to take action, such as to stop spam, security threats, copyright infringement and child pornography, but many cases aren't clear-cut, and balancing competing needs can get thorny.
"We often get caught in the middle between a rock and a hard place," said Christine Jones, general counsel with service provider GoDaddy.com Inc. "We're obviously sensitive to the freedoms we have, particularly in this country, to speak our mind, (yet) we want to be good corporate citizens and make the Internet a better and safer place."
In Dors' case, the law is fully with Yahoo. Its terms of service, similar to those of other service providers, gives Yahoo "sole discretion to pre-screen, refuse or remove any content." Service providers aren't required to police content, but they aren't prohibited from doing so.
While mindful of free speech and other rights, Yahoo and other companies say they must craft and enforce guidelines that go beyond legal requirements to protect their brands and foster safe, enjoyable communities — ones where minors may be roaming.
Guidelines help "engender a positive community experience," one to which users will want to return, said Anne Toth, Yahoo's vice president for policy.
Dors ultimately got his photo restored a second time, and Yahoo has apologized, acknowledging its community managers went too far.
Heather Champ, community director for Flickr, said the company crafts policies based on feedback from users and trains employees to weigh disputes fairly and consistently, though mistakes can happen.
"We're humans," she said. "We're pretty transparent when we make mistakes. We have a record of being good about stepping up and fessing up."
But that underscores another consequence of having online commons controlled by private corporations. Rules aren't always clear, enforcement is inconsistent, and users can find content removed or accounts terminated without a hearing. Appeals are solely at the service provider's discretion.
Users get caught in the crossfire as hundreds of individual service representatives apply their own interpretations of corporate policies, sometimes imposing personal agendas or misreading guidelines.
To wit: Verizon Wireless barred an abortion-rights group from obtaining a "short code" for conducting text-messaging campaigns, while LiveJournal suspended legitimate blogs on fiction and crime victims in a crackdown on pedophilia. Two lines criticizing President Bush disappeared from AT&T Inc.'s webcast of a Pearl Jam concert. All three decisions were reversed only after senior executives intervened amid complaints.
Inconsistencies and mysteries behind decisions lead to perceptions that content is being stricken merely for being unpopular.
"As we move more of our communications into social networks, how are we limiting ourselves if we can't see alternative points of view, if we can't see the things that offend us?" asked Fred Stutzman, a University of North Carolina researcher who tracks online communities.
First Amendment protections generally do not extend to private property in the physical world, allowing a shopping mall to legally kick out a customer wearing a T-shirt with a picture of a smoking child.
With online services becoming greater conduits than shopping malls for public communications, however, some advocacy groups believe the federal government needs to guarantee open access to speech. That, of course, could also invite meddling by the government, the way broadcasters now face indecency and other restrictions that are criticized as vague.
Others believe companies shouldn't police content at all, and if they do, they should at least make clearer the rules and the mechanisms for appeal.
"Vagueness does not inspire the confidence of people and leaves room for gaming the system by outside groups," said Lauren Weinstein, a veteran computer scientist and Internet activist. "When the rules are clear and the grievance procedures are clear, then people know what they are working with and they at least have a starting point in urging changes in those rules."
But Marjorie Heins, director of the Free Expression Policy Project, questions whether the private sector is equipped to handle such matters at all. She said written rules mean little when service representatives applying them "tend to be tone-deaf. They don't see context."
At least when a court order or other governmental action is involved, "there's more of a guarantee of due process protections," said Robin Gross, executive director of the civil-liberties group IP Justice. With a private company, users' rights are limited to the service provider's contractual terms of services.
Jonathan Zittrain, a Harvard professor who recently published a book on threats to the Internet's openness, said parties unhappy with sensitive materials online are increasingly aware they can simply pressure service providers and other intermediaries.
"Going after individuals can be difficult. They can be hard to find. They can be hard to sue," Zittrain said. "Intermediaries still have a calculus where if a particular Web site is causing a lot of trouble ... it may not be worth it to them."
Unable to stop purveyors of child pornography directly, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo recently persuaded three major access providers to disable online newsgroups that distribute such images. But rather than cut off those specific newsgroups, all three decided to reduce administrative hassles by also disabling thousands of legitimate groups devoted to TV shows, the New York Mets and other topics.
Gordon Lyon, who runs a site that archives e-mail postings on security, found his domain name suddenly deactivated because one entry contained MySpace passwords obtained by hackers.
He said MySpace went directly to domain provider GoDaddy, which effectively shut down his entire site, rather than contact him to remove the one posting or replace passwords with asterisks. GoDaddy justified such drastic measures, saying that waiting to reach Lyon would have unnecessarily exposed MySpace passwords, including those to profiles of children.
Meanwhile, in response to complaints it would not specify, Network Solutions LLC decided to suspend a Web hosting account that Dutch filmmaker Geert Wilders was using to promote a movie that criticizes the Quran — before the movie was even posted and without the company finding any actual violation of its rules.
Service providers say unhappy customers can always go elsewhere, but choice is often limited.
Many leading services, particularly online hangouts like Facebook and News Corp.'s MySpace or media-sharing sites such as Flickr and Google Inc.'s YouTube, have acquired a cachet that cannot be replicated. To evict a user from an online community would be like banishing that person to the outskirts of town.
Other sites "don't have the critical mass. No one would see it," said Scott Kerr, a member of the gay punk band Kids on TV, which found its profile mysteriously deleted from MySpace last year. "People know that MySpace is the biggest site that contains music."
MySpace denies engaging in any censorship and says profiles removed are generally in response to complaints of spam and other abuses. GoDaddy also defends its commitment to speech, saying account suspensions are a last resort.
Few service providers actively review content before it gets posted and usually take action only in response to complaints.
In that sense, Flickr, YouTube and other sites consider their reviews "checks and balances" against any community mob directed at unpopular speech — YouTube has pointedly refused to delete many video clips tied to Muslim extremists, for instance, because they didn't specifically contain violence or hate speech.
Still, should these sites even make such rules? And how can they ensure the guidelines are consistently enforced?
YouTube has policies against showing people "getting hurt, attacked or humiliated," banning even clips OK for TV news shows, but how is YouTube to know whether a video clip shows real violence or actors portraying it? Either way, showing the video is legal and may provoke useful discussions on brutality.
"Balancing these interests raises very tough issues," YouTube acknowledged in a statement.
Unwilling to play the role of arbiter, the group-messaging service Twitter has resisted pressure to tighten its rules.
"What counts as name-calling? What counts as making fun of someone in a way that's good-natured?" said Jason Goldman, Twitter's director of program management. "There are sites that do employ teams of people that
do that investigation ... but we feel that's a job we wouldn't do well."
Other sites are trying to be more transparent in their decisions.
Online auctioneer eBay Inc., for instance, has elaborated on its policies over the years, to the extent that sellers can drill down to where they can ship hatching eggs (U.S. addresses only) and what items related to natural disasters are permissible (they must have "substantial social, artistic or political value"). Hypothetical examples accompany each policy.
LiveJournal has recently eased restrictions on blogging. The new harassment clause, for instance, expressly lets members state negative feelings or opinions about another, and parodies of public figures are now permitted despite a ban on impersonation. Restrictions on nudity specifically exempt non-sexualized art and breast feeding.
The site took the unusual step of soliciting community feedback and setting up an advisory board with prominent Internet scholars such as Danah Boyd and Lawrence Lessig and two user representatives elected in May.
The effort comes just a year after a crackdown on pedophilia backfired. LiveJournal suspended hundreds of blogs that dealt with child abuse and sexual violence, only to find many were actually fictional works or discussions meant to protect children. The company's chief executive issued a public apology.
Community backlash can restrain service providers, but as Internet companies continue to consolidate and Internet users spend more time using vendor-controlled platforms such as mobile devices or social-networking sites, the community's power to demand free speech and other rights diminishes.
Weinstein, the veteran computer scientist, said that as people congregate at fewer places, "if you're knocked off one of those, in a lot of ways you don't exist."
The Odd One Out on This One
Homeowner Cleared Of Killing Burglary Suspects
POSTED: 1:10 pm CDT June 30, 2008
UPDATED: 6:39 pm CDT June 30, 2008
HOUSTON -- A Pasadena homeowner who fatally shot two men suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's house was cleared by a Harris County grand jury on Monday, KPRC Local 2 reported.
Joe Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, said that his 62-year-old client "acted in self-defense and had no choice."
Grand jurors announced the decision to not have charges filed against Horn after gathering evidence for two weeks, including hearing testimony from Horn.
Pasadena police said Horn killed burglary suspects Hernando Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, by shooting them in the back at about 2 p.m. on Nov. 14 as they ran from Horn's neighbor's house in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive.
"Today, having heard and considered all the evidence, the grand jury no-billed Joe Horn. I can tell you the grand jury conducted a thorough review of the evidence and the testimony," Harris County District Attorney Ken Magidson said.
"I think evidence showed Joe was within his legal rights to do what he did. He didn't want to do it. But he didn't have any other alternative. (In a) situation like that, it occurred so fast, there was no time for thinking," Lambright said. "This was a bad situation. Joe didn't want to be there. I hope no other homeowner is ever placed in that position. Joe was not some kind of wild cowboy. He was trying to help police. He got put in a situation that any one of us could find ourselves in."
Horn called 911 and told a dispatcher he witnessed two men break into his neighbor's house and that he would shoot if he stepped outside.
Horn told a 911 operator to hurry police because he was not going to let the men get away.
Horn: "I can't take a chance on getting killed over this, OK?"
911: "No."
Horn: "I'm going to shoot."
911: "Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK?"
A few minutes later, Torres and Ortiz, both illegal immigrants, were dead.
Horn's attorney said the grandfather regretted killing the men, but that Horn acted in self-defense. Texas law gives homeowners the right to use deadly force to defend lives or property.
"It could have been, they believed Joe Horn. It could have been they believed the castle doctrine applied. It could have been they thought anybody confronted with two burglars coming out of their neighbor's house in broad daylight deserved the ultimate punishment," said Brian Wice, Local 2's legal analyst.
The district attorney was asked what message the grand jury's decision might send.
"I think the message we're trying to send out here today is that the criminal justice system works. That every case will be looked into thoroughly and appropriately, and every case will be judged on its merits," Magidson said.
Horn was hailed as a hero by some and condemned as a killer by others. Hundreds on both sides demonstrated outside his Pasadena home after the shootings.
"There is not a snowflake chance in (expletive) that an African-American could have done what Joe Horn did and not be locked away in the Harris County jail," community activist Quanell X said in a statement Monday.
District Attorney's Statement
District Attorney Kenneth Magidson issued the following statement regarding the decision of a Harris County grand jury to no-bill Joe Horn.
"In June, after the conclusion of a long and exhaustive investigation by the City of Pasadena Police Department into the deaths of Hernando Riascos Torres and Diego Ortiz on November 14, 2007, our office presented the results of that investigation and all relevant witnesses to a Harris County grand jury for them to determine whether any criminal offense had been committed by Joe Horn, in relation to their deaths. Today, having heard and considered all of the law and evidence, the grand jury no-billed Joe Horn.
"Although, by state law, I cannot discuss the actual proceedings in the grand jury, I can tell you that the grand jury conducted a thorough review of the evidence and testimony. They considered the relevant criminal statutes in Texas, including those pertaining to homicide, use of deadly force, self-defense, and defense of property. In short, before making their decision, they were as well-informed on the facts and circumstances of this case as any deliberative body could be.
"I also understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct. The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances, and each case stands or falls on its particular facts.
"This office will continue to aggressively prosecute anyone who illegally engages in the use of force, deadly or otherwise, against another. In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense.
"As independent decision-makers of probable cause in our most serious criminal cases, the grand jurors deserve our deference and respect for their role in our criminal justice system."
City of Pasadena Statement
"With a decision by the grand jury not to return a true bill against Mr. Horn, a panel of citizens drawn from the community has determined that the facts of the incident did not warrant the handing up of an indictment for criminal actions. The grand jury, hearing the available facts and witnesses as well as the law to be applied in this case, is in the best position to make that determination.
"Mr. Horn has satisfied the state, through the grand jury process, that his actions do not warrant criminal prosecution on these charges. We hope that the decision of the grand jury, while difficult for some to accept, will be respected as the product of a careful weighing of all the facts by an impartial panel of citizens.
"This incident has been a tragedy for all those involved, changing lives forever. The obvious lessons that can be drawn from it are that criminal activities are inherently a dangerous lifestyle, and the prevention and pursuit of those involved in criminal actions are best left to the police. They are professionals trained to meet the unexpected circumstances of pursuit and apprehension. The City of Pasadena intends to continue to provide its police force whatever resources required to assure our citizens that their community remains a safe place to live and work."
I may not have my facts right, and I may be the odd one out here, and of course you are free to disagree with me. But I think this guy should have been prosecuted. I've been following this on the news and via some other sources and what I got from the whole thing is that this guy saw his neighbor's house being burgarlized, he called 911, then went outside and started shooting. They even said the autopsy report says they were killed by shotgun pellets in their backs.
First off, you don't go outside into harm's way. Second, you don't shoot someone who is running away. If they were in his house or he had been outside during all of this already, and these guys went after him, then open fire. But I got neither of those thoughts from what I heard and saw. And shots to the back typically say the guys were running away.
I am not for defending the rights of criminals, believe me. I do, however, strongly support the idea that you do not shoot someone in the back. Just my two cents, even if it ain't worth that much.
POSTED: 1:10 pm CDT June 30, 2008
UPDATED: 6:39 pm CDT June 30, 2008
HOUSTON -- A Pasadena homeowner who fatally shot two men suspected of burglarizing his neighbor's house was cleared by a Harris County grand jury on Monday, KPRC Local 2 reported.
Joe Horn's attorney, Tom Lambright, said that his 62-year-old client "acted in self-defense and had no choice."
Grand jurors announced the decision to not have charges filed against Horn after gathering evidence for two weeks, including hearing testimony from Horn.
Pasadena police said Horn killed burglary suspects Hernando Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30, by shooting them in the back at about 2 p.m. on Nov. 14 as they ran from Horn's neighbor's house in the 7400 block of Timberline Drive.
"Today, having heard and considered all the evidence, the grand jury no-billed Joe Horn. I can tell you the grand jury conducted a thorough review of the evidence and the testimony," Harris County District Attorney Ken Magidson said.
"I think evidence showed Joe was within his legal rights to do what he did. He didn't want to do it. But he didn't have any other alternative. (In a) situation like that, it occurred so fast, there was no time for thinking," Lambright said. "This was a bad situation. Joe didn't want to be there. I hope no other homeowner is ever placed in that position. Joe was not some kind of wild cowboy. He was trying to help police. He got put in a situation that any one of us could find ourselves in."
Horn called 911 and told a dispatcher he witnessed two men break into his neighbor's house and that he would shoot if he stepped outside.
Horn told a 911 operator to hurry police because he was not going to let the men get away.
Horn: "I can't take a chance on getting killed over this, OK?"
911: "No."
Horn: "I'm going to shoot."
911: "Stay inside the house and don't go out there, OK?"
A few minutes later, Torres and Ortiz, both illegal immigrants, were dead.
Horn's attorney said the grandfather regretted killing the men, but that Horn acted in self-defense. Texas law gives homeowners the right to use deadly force to defend lives or property.
"It could have been, they believed Joe Horn. It could have been they believed the castle doctrine applied. It could have been they thought anybody confronted with two burglars coming out of their neighbor's house in broad daylight deserved the ultimate punishment," said Brian Wice, Local 2's legal analyst.
The district attorney was asked what message the grand jury's decision might send.
"I think the message we're trying to send out here today is that the criminal justice system works. That every case will be looked into thoroughly and appropriately, and every case will be judged on its merits," Magidson said.
Horn was hailed as a hero by some and condemned as a killer by others. Hundreds on both sides demonstrated outside his Pasadena home after the shootings.
"There is not a snowflake chance in (expletive) that an African-American could have done what Joe Horn did and not be locked away in the Harris County jail," community activist Quanell X said in a statement Monday.
District Attorney's Statement
District Attorney Kenneth Magidson issued the following statement regarding the decision of a Harris County grand jury to no-bill Joe Horn.
"In June, after the conclusion of a long and exhaustive investigation by the City of Pasadena Police Department into the deaths of Hernando Riascos Torres and Diego Ortiz on November 14, 2007, our office presented the results of that investigation and all relevant witnesses to a Harris County grand jury for them to determine whether any criminal offense had been committed by Joe Horn, in relation to their deaths. Today, having heard and considered all of the law and evidence, the grand jury no-billed Joe Horn.
"Although, by state law, I cannot discuss the actual proceedings in the grand jury, I can tell you that the grand jury conducted a thorough review of the evidence and testimony. They considered the relevant criminal statutes in Texas, including those pertaining to homicide, use of deadly force, self-defense, and defense of property. In short, before making their decision, they were as well-informed on the facts and circumstances of this case as any deliberative body could be.
"I also understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct. The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances, and each case stands or falls on its particular facts.
"This office will continue to aggressively prosecute anyone who illegally engages in the use of force, deadly or otherwise, against another. In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn's use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense.
"As independent decision-makers of probable cause in our most serious criminal cases, the grand jurors deserve our deference and respect for their role in our criminal justice system."
City of Pasadena Statement
"With a decision by the grand jury not to return a true bill against Mr. Horn, a panel of citizens drawn from the community has determined that the facts of the incident did not warrant the handing up of an indictment for criminal actions. The grand jury, hearing the available facts and witnesses as well as the law to be applied in this case, is in the best position to make that determination.
"Mr. Horn has satisfied the state, through the grand jury process, that his actions do not warrant criminal prosecution on these charges. We hope that the decision of the grand jury, while difficult for some to accept, will be respected as the product of a careful weighing of all the facts by an impartial panel of citizens.
"This incident has been a tragedy for all those involved, changing lives forever. The obvious lessons that can be drawn from it are that criminal activities are inherently a dangerous lifestyle, and the prevention and pursuit of those involved in criminal actions are best left to the police. They are professionals trained to meet the unexpected circumstances of pursuit and apprehension. The City of Pasadena intends to continue to provide its police force whatever resources required to assure our citizens that their community remains a safe place to live and work."
I may not have my facts right, and I may be the odd one out here, and of course you are free to disagree with me. But I think this guy should have been prosecuted. I've been following this on the news and via some other sources and what I got from the whole thing is that this guy saw his neighbor's house being burgarlized, he called 911, then went outside and started shooting. They even said the autopsy report says they were killed by shotgun pellets in their backs.
First off, you don't go outside into harm's way. Second, you don't shoot someone who is running away. If they were in his house or he had been outside during all of this already, and these guys went after him, then open fire. But I got neither of those thoughts from what I heard and saw. And shots to the back typically say the guys were running away.
I am not for defending the rights of criminals, believe me. I do, however, strongly support the idea that you do not shoot someone in the back. Just my two cents, even if it ain't worth that much.
On Same-Sex Marriage
Not uncommon in debates, is a polarisation between two opposing sides: one that seeks radical change, and another that prefers to conform to tradition. Often, a more rational position can be attained by understanding the positions presented by each side, and finding a logical midway point that does justice to whatever merit each argument has.
At first glance, same-sex marriage appears to be a textbook example of such an argument. However, on closer inspection, I find it difficult to even positively assess one side's viewpoint, let alone incorporate aspects of it within my own opinion.
Perhaps I should explain exactly what my view is.
My firm belief is that, in a utilitarian society (which, in most aspects, Western nations clearly resemble), the concept of enforcing a system that limits human rights, despite there being no evidence of the alternative causing significant personal harm or societal damage in any way, is absurd. And yet, this is the current situation in Australia - there is no universal legal recognition of same-sex couples, certainly not on equal par with that granted to heterosexual couples, should they choose to formally commit to each other.
I would like to address some of the major arguments opposing my view, to show just how weak the current governmental and societal paradigm is.
One such argument claims that, as marriage is primarily the domain of monogamous couples, and (most likely reflecting a lack of awareness about homosexuality on the arguer's part) that monogamy is not really an aspect of the 'gay' lifestyle. This assumption, even if it were true, is completely irrelevant - for, even if the majority of homosexuals did indeed prefer promiscuity, that is no reason to bar the remainder from exercising their desire to commit to the (theoretically) unconventional lifestyle. Indeed, if there was only one couple who desired to be legally united, I do not see why their rights should be denied because of the preferences of others.
Another argument states that marriage entails the right to parent children, and is thus inappropriate for homosexuals, as the ideal environment for a child to be raised is with two parents representing each sex. This proposition is seriously flawed, as it ignores the fact that single-parent families are far from uncommon in this day and age. One might counter that such a situation is far from ideal, but the fact remains that the law grants the single mother the right to be parent to her child - how then can it be logically argued that it would be less desirable if the single mother was replaced by two mothers, or two fathers?
Indeed, there is little logical basis to even suggest that heterosexual parents are in any way more adept at raising children than their homosexual counterparts. While it is true that heterosexual parenthood is the natural order, the fact is that advanced technology, changes in gender roles and highly available information give homosexual parents as much chance as heterosexual parents of raising children in a healthy, positive environment.
The last major argument appeals to religion, but I choose to discard this completely - after all, the tenet of the separation of church and state is one that predates this debate by centuries, and thus, religious opposition should have no impact on the making of laws.
In conclusion, there seems to be little, if any credence to arguments against same-sex marriage, and neither does there seem to be a reason why it is not yet a wholly accepted part of society. This is a situation that must change - and soon.
At first glance, same-sex marriage appears to be a textbook example of such an argument. However, on closer inspection, I find it difficult to even positively assess one side's viewpoint, let alone incorporate aspects of it within my own opinion.
Perhaps I should explain exactly what my view is.
My firm belief is that, in a utilitarian society (which, in most aspects, Western nations clearly resemble), the concept of enforcing a system that limits human rights, despite there being no evidence of the alternative causing significant personal harm or societal damage in any way, is absurd. And yet, this is the current situation in Australia - there is no universal legal recognition of same-sex couples, certainly not on equal par with that granted to heterosexual couples, should they choose to formally commit to each other.
I would like to address some of the major arguments opposing my view, to show just how weak the current governmental and societal paradigm is.
One such argument claims that, as marriage is primarily the domain of monogamous couples, and (most likely reflecting a lack of awareness about homosexuality on the arguer's part) that monogamy is not really an aspect of the 'gay' lifestyle. This assumption, even if it were true, is completely irrelevant - for, even if the majority of homosexuals did indeed prefer promiscuity, that is no reason to bar the remainder from exercising their desire to commit to the (theoretically) unconventional lifestyle. Indeed, if there was only one couple who desired to be legally united, I do not see why their rights should be denied because of the preferences of others.
Another argument states that marriage entails the right to parent children, and is thus inappropriate for homosexuals, as the ideal environment for a child to be raised is with two parents representing each sex. This proposition is seriously flawed, as it ignores the fact that single-parent families are far from uncommon in this day and age. One might counter that such a situation is far from ideal, but the fact remains that the law grants the single mother the right to be parent to her child - how then can it be logically argued that it would be less desirable if the single mother was replaced by two mothers, or two fathers?
Indeed, there is little logical basis to even suggest that heterosexual parents are in any way more adept at raising children than their homosexual counterparts. While it is true that heterosexual parenthood is the natural order, the fact is that advanced technology, changes in gender roles and highly available information give homosexual parents as much chance as heterosexual parents of raising children in a healthy, positive environment.
The last major argument appeals to religion, but I choose to discard this completely - after all, the tenet of the separation of church and state is one that predates this debate by centuries, and thus, religious opposition should have no impact on the making of laws.
In conclusion, there seems to be little, if any credence to arguments against same-sex marriage, and neither does there seem to be a reason why it is not yet a wholly accepted part of society. This is a situation that must change - and soon.
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: Get the fuck on with your sad little life *updated - HAHAHA! You my friend, are my IDOL.
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy