Comments about ‘A Wiki-less day reminds all of freedom's price’

Imagine my teen daughter's relief when this morning at 4:45am, she logged into an article on the Element Zinc, and there was all that tasty information so freely given so that she can continue to do her homework with the least amount of work possible.

Wikipedia is a wonderful tool. I spent the whole day yesterday talking with people about obscure trivial topics, then I'd say, "You know, you'd know more about that topic, if you looked it up on Wikipedia!" then I'd paus and say, "Oh wait. You can't!"

Great Editorial--very reflective of the amazing byproducts of what happens when people are given the freedom to create useful tools together cooperatively of their own free will and choice.

It really is changing the world.

I can't believe people still want Obama as President...

Two big things:

TakING away personal rights.
AddING to National Debt.

ING means he is still doing it.

Ares,

What rights have you lost, or think you are losing?

How would the debt under McCain/Palin have been different?

Specifics, please.

And - what on Earth does your comment have to do with a letter about Wikipedia?

The trouble with bills like the "Patriot Act" is that members of Congress vote for the title without reading the actual law. Nobody wants to vote for something entitled "An Act to Repeal the Bill of Rights." I think Benjamin Franklin said it best when he said, "Those who give up their liberty for some temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."

Well said. I only hope you are right about our DNA of freedom. When 93 of our elected Senators (including one from Utah) vote for the NDAA and give government the ability to indefinitely detain American citizens without charge or trial, I fear we may have lost the soul of our liberty.

We do need stronger, quicker ways to nail those who take and use Intellectual Property without permission and/or licencing/payment for use. Deseret News will go after people and organizations that take your stories and put them up elsewhere. Maybe these laws are poorly written but we need more than DMCA takedown notices to protect those who actually create art, articles and Intellectual Property. Thieves are thieves, just because they do so on the Internet does not and should not give them protection.

Fine. I intend to put the Deseret News up for sale to the highest bidder. I'm sure there's a Russian mobster who will pay my price for control of your intellectual property. What's that you say? I don't "own" the Deseret News? What difference does that make? Jay Evensen says my stealing your IP is the price of his freedom!

Commercial conservatives would have us believe that freedom, given to us from God, floats on the air around us and that we may collect all we want. Unless, that is, some really bad guy, government, stops us.

The real truth is that God gives us life and nothing more. No guarantees, no rights and no freedom.

The only rights and freedoms that we have are those gained by the sharing and participation in society and its government. It is the agreements (laws and rules) with each other that gives freedom.

A good example would be the freedom of religion. If we didnt have the Constitution and a government to enforce it there would not be any freedom of religion in America.

I like the internet, However, there are many bad guys on the internet, and I dont know how to fully protect myself. They sometimes collect and steal information about me that they can do great harm to me. The often impose information on me that I really dont care to know. Its hard to not be captured by those animated ads.

If government does not protect me, I have no protection at all.

Sometimes in a nightmare I find myself in a very dark street with bad guys attacking me. When I awake and remember the street lights on the streets I travel, I feel very relieved.

Sometimes on the internet I wish there were some street lights to illuminate the danger.

Great piece Jay. I know of only one presidential candidate that has stood up against all those things you mention. President Obama said he opposed the Patriot Act as a Senator, and then signed the extension as President. Mitt Romney said he was fine with the NDAA, and that we could trust him or Obama to not abuse that power. Some of the canidates have supported all 3 of the things you mention.

Only Ron Paul has opposed the Patriot Act, the NDAA, and SOPA. Ron Paul is the only one who will err on the side of freedom every single time. For those serious about Constitutional rights, Ron Paul is the man to vote for.

SOPA and PIPA was legilation written by commercial interests.

Video and Record Industries are no longer making the Billions $$$ they once were.
Music and Acting groups can now by pass Producers and an endless Supply Chain of middlemen and go straight to the market place and sell directly to the consumers.

But "I'm not as rich as I used to be" could never get pasted into law.

So they sugar-coat it with words like "Protection" and
use scare tactics with words like "Terrorism".

And although that is the driving force,
The real problem is miss use of these new powers - which like with the Patriot Act, and the nose of the camel - will not go away anytime soon, and will only continue to grow until one day you wake-up and find you are no longer free.

That's why it's called an Erosion of Freedom.

BTW - The Germans never thought anti-Terrorist laws they passed in the 1920-1930's to portect them were bad.
But history shows how one-Party can take control and assume absolute Totalitarian Power by abusing them -- all perfectly Legal.

Guess what ? Even after Wiki was off for 24 hours, the sun came up, the birds sang, and I woke up !!

Personal free starts with the "person", not from some governmental office.

Until we understand that "fact", we will continue to look to "goverment" for our freedoms.

The Revolutionary War should have clarified that point, but people who are too lazy to read history are doomed to repeat it.