4 ms·
Yes, and the parent was arguing that the internet should have communication systems whereby people can speak in public without the government being able to look
by themgt 12y ago
Yes, and the parent was arguing that the internet should have communication systems whereby people can speak in public without the government being able to look at them for it.
- FireBeyond 12y agoThings aren't special "because ... Internet!". If something is done in public, it's done in public. If you'd face consequences for it on the street, why shouldn't you online? I can't see any particular level of logic than "we should be able to get away with shit online". Note, for emphasis, that this is entirely an aside to the subject of legalization, as I'm actually much more pro-legalization than anything else.
- wmf 12y agoThe Federalist Papers were published pseudonymously in 1787. I don't think people are asking for special privileges for the Internet.
- Steko 12y agoWe're the Federalist Papers advocating/admitting to illegal activity?
- undersuit 12y agoYes? Here are a number of essays that lay out the issues with the current government and ways to make a better government written by a number of influential U.S. figures during the war that led to the U.S. independence from Britain. You think the British weren't concerned at all about who was writing this propaganda and weren't willing to violate the "rights" of their colonists... because I think the authors were quite concerned.
- Steko 12y agoThe British recognized US independence in 1783; Federalist Papers published in 1787-88. Regardless if the Federalist Papers had bragged about smuggling a subsequent investigation would have compelled printers etc to name the authors.
- undersuit 12y agoYes I seem to have added a decade somewhere...
- themgt 12y agoJust to correct the downthread derail, I'm guessing you were confusing this with Common Sense, Thomas Paine's anonymously published 1776 pamphlet calling for rebellion against Britain.