slapnose.com

This is just the beginning Anthony. Ever since the end of Finsin rules, they've essentially been let loose, able to make media to their will without any greater responsibility on privacy rights needed, Orwelian oligarchy, so on, so forth.

Check this link for further info:

http://webcast.ucsd.edu:8080/ramgen/UCSD_TV/9290.rm

It seems everything's heading toward Terry Gilliam's Corporate Brazil. So long as fear remains the main agenda, individual rights will continue to be abolished. Help along Larry's cause! If anyone can continue spreading this link, that'd be great! Whatever it takes to protect individual's rights!

Protect individual rights no matter how it effects the public saftey!!

Yeah, good one, Mike.

And how, pray-tell, does giving up my right to private communication with my friends protect the public safety? Is AOL's claiming all rights to my thoughts and expressions now and in perpetuity somehow relevant to national security? Are you out of your mind?

I, like Benjamin Franklin, would never trade liberty for a little safety, especially when that safety is an illusion to begin with.

I will admit that they go too far with their wording, claiming intelectual property and all. But there can be a good reason for communications to be tapped. I, like the main stream, might do a little trading if we might be able to protect the public saftey. Just becuase we can't see the immediate results doesn't mean that there are no benefits, and are you really worried about what you are saying to your freinds? I would guess that you don't worry about what you are saying but just the idea of it.
I don't claim to be a founding father, although Franklin was something of a playboy who is to be admired.
Based on what you stated about trading liberty for saftey, how do you feel about giving up your right to bear arms in order to protect the public saftey? And don't try to debate the whole militia vs. individual ownership thing with me, the Supreme Court already established that individuals can own personal firearms. Not to get off on a tangent.

If there is good reason for communication to be tapped, we have a little thing called a warrant that allows the government to do so, under the supervision of the courts. Oversight is a good thing. Furthermore, AOL is not the government and arguments based on national security like this simply do not apply to them.

Whether or not I'm worried about what I say is completely beside the point. Arguing that you have nothing to hide so why should you be worried is a very dangerous road to go down. What will you do when they decide that something you say IS a cause of concern? Freedoms are not taken away from citizens wholesale, they are eroded bit by bit, and they are almost never returned without massive revolt.

We have an absolute right to be informed of the direct results of the curtailing of our liberties and the right to determine if we choose to make that trade. The government (or a corporation) simply telling us, "We know what's best for you, don't worry." is scary beyond words.

I personally am not interested in having the right to bear arms and I believe that right has been misinterpreted and misapplied in this country. The words, "a well-regulated militia" seem to be forever absent from the gun lobby's citations of the 2nd Amendment. People with Glocks in the bedside table are not a well-regulated militia. I don't care what the Supreme Court has said. They may legally be the final word on Constitutionality, but their decisions are not written in stone and I disagree with many of them, as I'm sure you do.

We constantly trade our freedoms for a little (perceived) safety, and it is certainly justified in some cases. But we have to take any curbing of our freedoms very seriously and be vigilant. The fact is that fear has always been used by the powerful to reduce the rights of the less powerful, and it has almost never been legitimate. The dangers are always exaggerated and the security provided nearly always false or fleeting.

I'll end with ol' Ben again, because he put it best...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

The only reason that I bring up the right to own personal weapons issue is that I beleive one should either defend the liberties that the constitution as a whole and not pick and choose which ones are convienent to that particular person. The Supreme Court has seen fit to interpret the constirution as a living document that can be changed thru judicial action when society changes, although Scalia would argue feircly with you. Are we to pick and choose which liberties we like and condemn those who don't agree. Give up some privacy, but not the guns. Or give up the guns but not my privacy. If one gives way do they all really follow? Has there been an erosion of personal liberty or has the Supreme Court actually expanded the liberties we enjoy thru judicial action? Questions to contemplate.

Want to know how bad this can get? I have had an AOL account for over 10 years. The only reason I kept the account was because so many people had my e-mail address. Over the past six months, I started going into political chat rooms and debating politics. These chat rooms, in my opinion, are filled with the most uninformed people on earth and on several occassions, I've lost my temper and have made insulting comments in response to insults hurled in my direction. Yesterday, I looked at someone's profile with whom I was arguing and found that she had a racist symbol in it. When the woman then told me to "shut the fuck up" in response to something I said about her profile, I used the words "dumb ass" to describe her in the chat room. Later that day, my AOL account was terminated. I spent hours on the phone with AOL representatives in India and all refused based on "TOS policy" (I had similar complaints from others over a period of 6 months and AOL was monitoring me). Nothing that I ever said or did on AOL would constitute obscene speech; all of the offending comments were heated political comments. All of my stored information on AOL is lost, business cards with my AOL address are now useless, expected correspondence from friends will be bounced, etc. Somehow, it is okay for AOL to allow "Mature Interests" chat rooms that include such things as "DaddyForYoung" and "Mom Walked In On" but when some trailer park trash wants to report me for calling her a dumb ass, AOL can shut down my 10 year e-mail identity in an instant. Needless to say, if privacy is important to you, stay away from anything Time Warner

The only reason i come here is to inform you all that while you sit in this very chatroom there is great problems that need to be solved. if you care so much about the world then you should protect it. Protect it from people like Bush. The environment is in a terrible condition and we do nothing about it. Just ask the O Zone layer. and the troposphere and find out that the atmosphere's methane is greatly increasing. Maybe one day Nitrogen won't be the biggest gas in our atmosphere. land pollutin. The land is depleting in size by global warming. Something muzt happen and now before the ground we walk on fades and we have nothing to stand on.

I have been having a problem with someone harrasing me and I can block them and everything but somehow they always comeback there screen name is Horror N hip hop@aol.com

THIS PERSON BANNED ME FROM A CHAT ROOM
AND WAS UNFAIR I DID NOTHING WRONG

tearaway79 is harrassing me.. when i try to block her. she goes on another screen name and swears even more.. Can you help?

ya i acedinetally click on that it was not on pupose i am so sorry if that was not good and i would like to say that u people at aol have maid my live a lot easir thank u

some on must have reported me for some thing i can not log on to any thing that is referance to diapers i canot go to diapers on chat etc what happened and when will i beable to go on line to room diaper an rsearch adult diper users for my masters please giv me a date thank u

I object strenuously to the current policy that TOS can send me an e-mail to which I cannot reply. That is an outrage. If you are going to communicate with a party regarding aol policies you should have the decency to accept responses.

told me to go f myself in chat room chicago chat room 3

Slapnose Merchandise! At last!