Clinton Urges Countries Not to Restrict Internet(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Clinton Urges Countries Not to Restrict Internet
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/world/at-hague-hillary-rodham-clinton-urges-countries-not-to-restrict-internet.html?_r=all
27 comments
She's just saying that other countries should not restrict the Internet more than the US does.
So all countries can sieze websites without due process? Sounds fair.
As long as the US is already doing so, so it appears you understand perfectly.
Moral Relativism is nothing new.
Reminds me of the quote by Orwell: All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by 'our' side.
Reminds me of the quote by Orwell: All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by 'our' side.
Hope she finds time to bring that show to Washington DC.
I hope they realize how damaging their own in house legislature like SOPA is damaging to their international efforts. They already look a bit more suspect with SOPA on the table and were it ever to pass they'd have the credibility of China.
Less. China is honest about restricting its people and doesn't try to tell everybody else they're not paying attention to human rights.
Oh the hypocrisy.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/09/hillary_clinton_and_internet...
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/09/hillary_clinton_and_internet...
Yes. The hypocrisy has me questioning her authenticity. Has she had a change of heart or is she just playing a game to increase popularity and gain votes?
She made this exact same speech before wikileaks (January 2010) [1]. She's making this exact same speech after wikileaks. The hymn sheet doesn't change. [2] By standing up and demanding that other countries behave morally she suggests that we make this demand because we do. Do you think Pinochet did not stand and make these same speeches? Or Hu Jintao? Or Saddam Hussein? Or Thatcher? Or Assad?
Are you imagining she would stand up and tell the truth? Have you been paying attention? If you were to ask her, would she say that flying military aircraft into our airspace would be an act of war, even as we fly ours into Iran's? The list is endless.
This is all theater.
[1] http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/21/internet_fr...
[2] http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
Are you imagining she would stand up and tell the truth? Have you been paying attention? If you were to ask her, would she say that flying military aircraft into our airspace would be an act of war, even as we fly ours into Iran's? The list is endless.
This is all theater.
[1] http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/01/21/internet_fr...
[2] http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat
Not a single mention of SOPA in the article...
Of course not. SOPA is common-sense legislation designed to protect the creative people in our society. It has nothing to do with Internet restrictions or censorship.
</sarcasm>
Ok Mrs.Clinton, Please don't sell filtering and spying device to countries ;)
NYT sucks for not mentioning SOPA. #FAIL.
Great news, I guess this means that Wikileaks will be free to receive donations and disseminate news of interest to citizens.
At least now we know the real reasons the US wants to restrict internet access, it's not copyright as we had long suspected but to "threaten basic freedoms and human rights and also international commerce and the free flow of information."
At least now we know the real reasons the US wants to restrict internet access, it's not copyright as we had long suspected but to "threaten basic freedoms and human rights and also international commerce and the free flow of information."
"THE HAGUE — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and other international leaders urged countries and private businesses on Thursday to fight increasing efforts to restrict access to the Internet by repressive governments and even some democratic ones. "
Some democratic ones.... like the United States and Australia, right?
Some democratic ones.... like the United States and Australia, right?
I think my irony meter just hit 11.
The USG has always been a big follower of the "do as we say, not as we do" paradigm.
She added: “There isn’t an economic Internet and a social Internet and a political Internet. There’s just the Internet.”
She should have said, "It's the Internet, stupid."
She should have said, "It's the Internet, stupid."
This from a woman whose husband signed the DMCA into law.
Meanwhile at the US....
SOPA
Need I say more?
[deleted]
I think we have a House to put in order first.
(cough cough SOPA cough cough DHS cough)
Yes sir, freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search, and "innocent until proven guilty", that's how we do it in the Land of the Free.