If you need assistance, please send an email to forum at 4hv dot org. To ensure your email is not marked as spam, please include the phrase "4hv help" in the subject line. You can also find assistance via IRC, at irc.shadowworld.net, room #hvcomm.
Support 4hv.org!
Donate:
4hv.org is hosted on a dedicated server. Unfortunately, this server costs and we rely on the help of site members to keep 4hv.org running. Please consider donating. We will place your name on the thanks list and you'll be helping to keep 4hv.org alive and free for everyone. Members whose names appear in red bold have donated recently. Green bold denotes those who have recently donated to keep the server carbon neutral.
Special Thanks To:
Aaron Holmes
Aaron Wheeler
Adam Horden
Alan Scrimgeour
Andre
Andrew Haynes
Anonymous000
asabase
Austin Weil
barney
Barry
Bert Hickman
Bill Kukowski
Blitzorn
Brandon Paradelas
Bruce Bowling
BubeeMike
Byong Park
Cesiumsponge
Chris F.
Chris Hooper
Corey Worthington
Derek Woodroffe
Dalus
Dan Strother
Daniel Davis
Daniel Uhrenholt
datasheetarchive
Dave Billington
Dave Marshall
David F.
Dennis Rogers
drelectrix
Dr. John Gudenas
Dr. Spark
E.TexasTesla
eastvoltresearch
Eirik Taylor
Erik Dyakov
Erlend^SE
Finn Hammer
Firebug24k
GalliumMan
Gary Peterson
George Slade
GhostNull
Gordon Mcknight
Graham Armitage
Grant
GreySoul
Henry H
IamSmooth
In memory of Leo Powning
Jacob Cash
James Howells
James Pawson
Jeff Greenfield
Jeff Thomas
Jesse Frost
Jim Mitchell
jlr134
Joe Mastroianni
John Forcina
John Oberg
John Willcutt
Jon Newcomb
klugesmith
Leslie Wright
Lutz Hoffman
Mads Barnkob
Martin King
Mats Karlsson
Matt Gibson
Matthew Guidry
mbd
Michael D'Angelo
Mikkel
mileswaldron
mister_rf
Neil Foster
Nick de Smith
Nick Soroka
nicklenorp
Nik
Norman Stanley
Patrick Coleman
Paul Brodie
Paul Jordan
Paul Montgomery
Ped
Peter Krogen
Peter Terren
PhilGood
Richard Feldman
Robert Bush
Royce Bailey
Scott Fusare
Scott Newman
smiffy
Stella
Steven Busic
Steve Conner
Steve Jones
Steve Ward
Sulaiman
Thomas Coyle
Thomas A. Wallace
Thomas W
Timo
Torch
Ulf Jonsson
vasil
Vaxian
vladi mazzilli
wastehl
Weston
William Kim
William N.
William Stehl
Wesley Venis
The aforementioned have contributed financially to the continuing triumph of 4hv.org. They are deserving of my most heartfelt thanks.
Registered Member #2261
Joined: Mon Aug 03 2009, 01:19AM
Location: London, UK
Posts: 581
Grenadier wrote ...
That isn't necessarily limited to the USA. The cops that do that are simply *ssholes, and every country has *ssholes. ...
Yes, there are plenty of bad individual cops in the UK. It's much worse when it's someone further up the hierarchy forcing a whole station to break the law and when an individual has the courage to report it, the complaints system drops him in the sh*t!
If 4HV ever gets shut down I hope a backup will be up again in a few days hosted in some other more user friendly location (Sweden?).
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
IntraWinding wrote ...
If 4HV ever gets shut down I hope a backup will be up again in a few days hosted in some other more user friendly location (Sweden?).
There are contingencies in place, just in case. I could have the site back up fairly quickly. Whether or not I could afford to keep it up in the midst of a protracted legal battle would be very much up to the community, though.
Registered Member #1408
Joined: Fri Mar 21 2008, 03:49PM
Location: Oracle, AZ
Posts: 679
Is there NO reason for disallowing yelling "FIRE" in a crowed theater?
The Supreme Court in several ruling on 1st Amendment rights dealt with the concept of "fighting words" and the individuals rights to self expression vs society's right to be free from a non-physical assault.
There is a well known religious group that goes to funerals of individuals who have dies from AIDS and screamed and verbally assaulted the mourners. They also did the same during military funerals for service men who died in combat. ......They (the religious group) sued the people who punched them under their right to "freedom of expression".
If we don't draw a line somewhere what is the use of having laws to protect privacy? Why should one person's freedom of expression dominate the other person's freedom to morn a loss, or be safe from a "false fire alarm"?
If by some simple everyday routine, Anthrax could be weaponized & cultured from the soil by a high school freshman what good does that do society to not restrain that information?
Where does the obligation to protect society and the element of free expression intersect & where do they differ.....? Or do they ALWAYS benefit society?
IF they always benefited society why do we stop the yelling of "FIRE" in a crowed theater?
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
quicksilver wrote ...
Why should one person's freedom of expression dominate the other person's freedom to morn a loss, or be safe from a "false fire alarm"?
There's a difference between the two. It has been long understood that the only speech not covered by the First Amendment in the United States is that which creates a "clear and present danger." Protesting someone's funeral may be cruel and offensive, but you don't have the right to not be taunted or offended here in the US. In other nations, the situation may be different. In any case, I don't think anyone here is advocating that there be no restrictions on free speech at all.
quicksilver wrote ...
If by some simple everyday routine, Anthrax could be weaponized & cultured from the soil by a high school freshman what good does that do society to not restrain that information?
Because such restraint is an illusion. Those who mean to do harm will not be restrained by laws that seek to block the spread of information, nor will they be discovered by invasions into the privacy of regular citizens. Worse, the systems that are put into place to block such information can be easily abused by those in power to block speech or information that is merely unpopular, unpatriotic, or creates some nebulous and unverifiable "danger" to others.
quicksilver wrote ...
Where does the obligation to protect society and the element of free expression intersect & where do they differ.....? Or do they ALWAYS benefit society?
IF they always benefited society why do we stop the yelling of "FIRE" in a crowed theater?
The Supreme Court seems to have this one right. Free expression ends when it creates a clear and present danger to others. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater creates a clear and present danger of death or physical injury to those who might attempt to escape the theater in a rush. Protesting a funeral does not create such a risk.
Registered Member #514
Joined: Sun Feb 11 2007, 12:27AM
Location: Somewhere in Pirkanmaa, Finland
Posts: 295
Just had to whip out good 'ol MSPaint.
This is how I believe things should be, and it seems simple enough. Does X violate your rights? No. Does it violate someone elses? No. Leave them be. If you answered yes on either one, then perhaps something should be done, maybe. It's all awfully subjective.
Edit: Guess I should have a point in here too...
Information, even potentially dangerous information should be freely available. It's up to everyone to decide how to use this information, or if they are going to use it at all.
A person shouldn't be allowed to harm others, that would be stepping on their rights (even though that situation is an utopia, because ill meaning people will always find a way). But harming one's self is a different matter and well within one's rights in my book (however stupid doing so might be).
Registered Member #30
Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
Your diagram is wrong. The three circles always overlap in all practical situations, because the world is a finite place with finite resources. Every time I assert my rights, I violate someone else's and vice versa.
Examples:
It's every American's right to drive a SUV and enjoy air conditioning, but Bangladeshis also have a right not to be flooded by climate change.
I like to play electric guitar, but my neighbours like peace and quiet.
Registered Member #2893
Joined: Tue Jun 01 2010, 09:25PM
Location: Cali-forn. i. a.
Posts: 2242
Oh no, look at this. The USA is likely going to have an internet blacklist. This is some serious shit. If this gets passed, goodbye torrents, goodbye websites like totse and rotteneggs, goodbye "dangerous" DIY sites, goodbye pyrotechnics websites, goodbye pothead forums, goodbye internet freedom.
When it really matters to them, Congressmembers can come together -- with a panache and wry wit you didn't know they had. As banned books week gets underway, and President Obama admonishes oppressive regimes for their censorship of the Internet, a group of powerful Senators -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- have signed onto a bill that would vastly expand the government's power to censor the Internet.
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced just one week ago, but it's greased and ready to move, with a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday. If people don't speak out, US citizens could soon find themselves joining Iranians and Chinese in being blocked from accessing broad chunks of the public Internet.
... not Russel! Registered Member #1
Joined: Thu Jan 26 2006, 12:18AM
Location: Tempe, Arizona
Posts: 1052
Grenadier wrote ...
Oh no, look at this. The USA is likely going to have an internet blacklist. This is some serious shit. If this gets passed, goodbye torrents, goodbye websites like totse and rotteneggs, goodbye "dangerous" DIY sites, goodbye pyrotechnics websites, goodbye pothead forums, goodbye internet freedom.
When it really matters to them, Congressmembers can come together -- with a panache and wry wit you didn't know they had. As banned books week gets underway, and President Obama admonishes oppressive regimes for their censorship of the Internet, a group of powerful Senators -- Republicans and Democrats alike -- have signed onto a bill that would vastly expand the government's power to censor the Internet.
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) was introduced just one week ago, but it's greased and ready to move, with a hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee this Thursday. If people don't speak out, US citizens could soon find themselves joining Iranians and Chinese in being blocked from accessing broad chunks of the public Internet.
More.
Discuss plz.
I've been following this one closely. COICA seems to hinge on two important methods of "blocking" sites. First, it will require registrars to suspend domain names once an injunction has been granted to the US Attorney General. Unfortunately for COICA, the US doesn't own the internet, and it's relatively easy obtain domains from registrars that are not subject to US law.
The second part of the proposed law is that ISPs and DNS server operators residing inside the US will be required to stop resolving IP addresses for affected domain names. This part is more frightening, as many TLDs have at least one authoritative nameserver inside the US. This means that users worldwide could be affected by such an action, even if the content is legal and hosted in their own country. The end result will be that US companies will lose business as non-US TLD operators migrate authoritative nameserver operations out of the United States to avoid being subject to arbitrary blacklisting. Ultimately, US users who want to access blocked content will need to do nothing more than stop using their ISP's DNS servers, and instead use alternates located in Canada or Europe. Content providers who want to host content that may potentially be blocked will simply not use TLDs that are subject to the authority of the US. Yes, this will make things slightly harder for John Q. Knownothing to pirate the latest episodes of Desperate Housewives, but serious pirates (or, for that matter, anyone capable of doing a very cursory Googling around for a tutorial) will not be dissuaded in any way.
COICA, even if passed, will be an utter failure. But that doesn't mean we should sit idly by and let it pass anyway -- who knows what the next bill will bring. I've already fired off notes to my representatives and senators letting them know how I feel about this bill. I would urge everyone who feels strongly about censorship to do the same.
Registered Member #30
Joined: Fri Feb 03 2006, 10:52AM
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Posts: 6706
It'll be interesting to see whether Google Public DNS and OpenDNS decide to honour these bans. They're both global services, but are the corporations providing them bound by US law?
This site is powered by e107, which is released under the GNU GPL License. All work on this site, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License. By submitting any information to this site, you agree that anything submitted will be so licensed. Please read our Disclaimer and Policies page for information on your rights and responsibilities regarding this site.
<OT> Freedom of speech vs: The Internet's Dark Side
