4 ms·
That is a bit Kafkaesque. Everyone has the right to know why their right is being denied or what they are being charged with. If it was a privet firm then fine
by Ardit20 16y ago
That is a bit Kafkaesque.
Everyone has the right to know why their right is being denied or what they are being charged with. If it was a privet firm then fine, but the government can't just go around closing websites without saying if not in detail then in general what the charges are. How, if the website owner is wronged, is he able to challenge the decision if he does not even know what the allegations are against him.
- Roboprog 16y agoWhat you say was more or less true in 2000. Things have changed a bit since then. The fact that many recent laws and programs obviously defy the first ten amendments to the US Constitution have gone "unnoticed" by the SCOTUS, and both major brands (D & R) seem content with how things have developed the last decade. "We the rabble" are likely in for a 10 year slog to fix things, if we are lucky: paper ballots; some kind of coalition or runoff voting rule changes to take down the "two" party system; reestablishment of the rule of law.
- Ardit20 16y agoI am sorry. I can not quite agree with that. I do not know about the united states, but here in the united kingdom we have a very independent judiciary which has ruled against the government time and time again. I do agree in a way, just before Tony Blair left, which I think was 2008 or 2007 things seemed to be going in a very dark direction, but frankly, it is the peoples fault. We are so lucky as to be able to change government without bloodshed and in the UK for what I know we are so lucky as to not go down without a very real power struggle between the executive and the judiciary. Take them to court I say. That is what they are for.