I'm Being Silenced! Force Freedom of Speech (on Private Enterprise)!

Read the subject of this post here: http://amazingatheist.tumblr.com/post/58763857547/youtube-is-100-within-its-rights-to-remove-your

I've written about TJ a few times so far and each time I thought I've seen the worst of him, it seems that he tops himself a little later on, so I then feel the need to comment on him again.

The gist of the situation behind the linked Tumblr post is that a number of TJ's YouTube videos were flagged for removal. Now, no one knows the full story yet, perhaps neither does he, but it's safe to say even at this point that he is indeed being censored. The party responsible is unknown, but that's not really important. What is important is how he is reacting to the issue.

It's fine that he's notifying his more active followers to keep themselves posted on his other social media outlets, but in saying the following...

Let’s consider that for a moment. Should your phone company control what you say on the phone? Should your ISP control what you say online? Then why should YouTube get to control what you post on YouTube? 

If YouTube was a small, exclusive site, I think your argument would have merit. But YouTube is large enough now, culturally important enough now, that we must extend First Amendment protections to YouTube videos.

 ...he does himself no favors. To compare companies which provide actual services to that of websites, albeit with very high traffic (YouTube is ranked #3 by the Alexa Ranking System globally & in the U.S.), is fucking ridiculous. Memorandum to TJ: their site is their god damn private property, and they can set the terms of service for using their site(s) any way they damn well please.

Here is what he responded to. Keep in mind that it contains a bit of vitriol directed at him, but compared to what he's received from many other sources, it's pretty tame:

Youtube is 100% within its rights to remove your videos. They are a company. You are allowed to hold whatever (fucking stupid) opinions you wish, but they are IN NO WAY obligated to give you a platform from which to spout said (fucking stupid) opinions. Yes, I am "for real". I know you wish women didn't exist, but sadly for your sorry fat ass, they do.

Too bad for the big guy that the poster of the above (verbatim) paragraph is 100% correct regarding Youtube's rights on controlling content that populates what is their property. When TJ said that "if YouTube was a small, exlusive site, I think your argument would have merit", he threw in a non-sequitur; the size & reach of an entity in a market, except for utilities, does not serve as a barometer on whether said entity should be regulated in any way by the government. Instead, the function of a company is a category upon which to consider regulations of a private organization. Owned by Google (whose service I am using now, obviously), a private corporation, they are explicitly excluded from freedom of speech rights as declared by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The government has no ability to set limits, or even lift them completely, in the private sector.

And it should stay that way.

I assume that you, reader, have gleaned the aforementioned amendment within a valid copy of the document from which it can be found. In that case, I don't need to quote it to support my argument that TJ is either somehow ignorant of said amendment (the old-world English as used in said document may have threw him for a loop), or is outright cherry-picking it in order to advocate for the abolition of the barrier set in place by that same document. Given his nature as a money-hungry, fraudulent, shady motherfucker since, as an actual example, he's still wrapped in a controversy regarding his $17,000+ video embedding site (which went down within two months of launching, and has yet to return to full operating order as of this writing), I feel that he falls into the latter case.

An argument that pushes government mandates on freedom of speech rights within the private realm, be it the home of the Average Joe (provided it isn't owned by government assets and thus, being publicly-owned property), a small business, a web business, or anything along those lines, is an unsound argument. First of all, it violates the Constitution itself. Second, because YouTube (and Google, henceforth) are accessed by users throughout the world and their assets are not exclusively rooted in the United States (in spite of being founded in Menlo Park, California), it would be a burden to legally impose Free Speech laws on YouTube alone because it would have to be applied distinctly according to the rights (or lack thereof) of each country which grants access to the site. Google's monetary assets are extremely high, and they could challenge such wasteful theoretical scenarios with the best legal teams their money could buy.

TheAmazingAtheist, an admitted Social Libertarian (mind you that within the same context, Social Liberal is virtually synonymous with that position), who held starkly Libertarian views on economics, essentially wishes for the government (his government, mind you) to re-write the Constitution so as to mandate freedom of speech laws on the private sector, particularly YouTube/Google. Keep in mind that this is not out of principle, but rather out of necessity, for him. He doesn't care about the experience of others, but that of his own, since the guy is laughably dependent on his earnings through Google AdSense via YouTube partnership. He's also a shameless beggar who comes up with sob stories or snake oil sales schemes to bilk money out of his more naive subscribers. His channel is, due to a large number of his uploaded videos being flagged down, likely going to be on the chopping block and he is understandably in panic mode.

But arguing for the intervention of the Government to protect his right to a platform and to speak freely on what is the property of a private corporation is not only desperately reaching, it's sadly hilarious. I hope he realizes just how idiotic his response was to the user who posted that comment on his Tumblr, because if that were enacted in the U.S., then it would set a bad precedent of yet conceived proportions. I feel bad for the guy because he's a weak-willed individual with seemingly few principles, if any at all, and will say or do anything to avoid having to get a fucking job like most people do. After all, people who work earn their money, but he has to beg for it. He's 28 fucking years old and he asks for handouts in ways no different than teenagers, but the difference between he and teenagers is that he manages to sell himself doing it.

Who's Rilin' Palin? Who's Even Listenin'? (Link)

 Copyright © Superbious.com and Garrett Will 2012-2013 All Rights Reserved.

Oh ya, click here to read, you betcha!

Another Teaser for Another Article: Who's Rilin' Palin? Who's Even Listenin'?

Like many of you who read my content, I've seen & heard more than my desired fill (read: none at all) of anything of & from Sarah Palin. So, when she recently dropped another stinking load on the Greta Van Susteren-hosted program On The Record over a week ago, I felt the need to write this upcoming article.

When it is ready on the site, I will put out a new post linking y'all to it. 

It's Alive!

I'm back! Now I can finish where I left off with 'Purge', and continue with 'Fury' as well! Good times are ahead.

Bringing the Dead Back to Life (Update)

I recently purchased the parts necessary to restore my workstation (where my writings are stored) to working order. I will try to get that all done in the week. Once that is complete, my literature will be on the road to completion.

Another dead power supply means I have to wait until payday (this Friday) to nab yet another of those damned things. I've gone through four of those in about 5 years, so that's almost 1 a year. Ridiculously delicate things they seem to be, but you need 'em to compute.

Otherwise I have my desk, chair, and motherboard all ready to go. Just need a pesky current to power them up and you can't do that without a PSU, obviously. Eh, this week will go by fast anyway!

Absentia review (2011, Horror/Mystery/Thriller, Mike Flanagan, Fallback Plan Productions/Blue Dot Productions)

Seventy-thousand dollars, and we get this hidden gem.

Granted, that is an estimate as far as the web (IMDB's "Box Office" section for the film notes this) is concerned, but if there's a significant grain of truth in that number, then it's quite something. But you may be wondering just why I am harping on this point instead of getting to the point?

The point is that this film is remarkable given its barebones budget. Just think about it: George Romero produced the 1968 horror classic Night of the Living Dead on a $114,000 budget. I don't know what that figure is when you adjust for inflation, but it's quite a bit more than what Mike Flanagan, the director/writer of Absentia, had to work with, and this was done in 2011.

Regardless, the film excels in so many ways in spite of that heavily-restrictive budget. For one, it's a far cry from the typical cheap scares & tricks of the genre today. Instead, the film has a slow, but deliberate pacing to it, building the tension for you to experience throughout the film. When any "in your face" horror does appear, it is appropriate and not forced just to try and get a rise out of the audience.

There's also a bit of drama to experience as well. The premise is that Tricia (Courtney Bell, also involved in the production of the film), eight months pregnant, has nearly finished grieving over the loss of her highschool sweetheart & husband seven years prior. Or so she hopes to believe. When she has to declare him legally dead (in absentia), her guilt comes to haunt her. Her guilt takes on the form of an emaciated, ghoulish-looking image of her husband. As for the reason she's seeing him, it is left up to the viewer's interpretation. As for her situation that may be causing her emotional duress, she's pending delivery of her unborn baby, and creeping unease is haunting her over the course of the film; could she feel guilty for having slept with a man while her husband was still missing? Does she feel that her husband, her teenage-sweetheart, should have been the father? Or could she truly be over the grieving process regarding her loss? That's for you to decide.

In the meantime, her younger sister Callie (Katie Parker) has returned from her status as a drifter searching for answers as to the meaning of life, among other things. Apparently recovering from drug abuse and trying to cope with her own problems through prayer, Callie nonetheless reignites the sister-sister bond with Tricia in their respective times of need. Supportive of her sister when she needs her most, Callie is an important piece of the puzzle in the plot of the film.

However, as time goes on, disappearances occur in their immediate neighborhood, and old cases open up anew, bringing tingling questions with them. To go on further, though, would be to spoil the film unjustly.

First of all, there's no elaborate special effects to be found throughout the film. If you're one of those viewers who needs spectacular visual displays to occur at one point or another, then you're going to be gravely disappointed in this one. Also, as I've mentioned, the film has a deliberate, prodding pace, and it may bore the less attentive of viewers quite a bit. Unlike most horror films ever made, Absentia presents the horror elements through tense buildup, and rather clever release (monsters showing up & other engaging scenes) sparsely.

You're also likely not going to feel like the film has been resolved. What really happened by the end of the film? Did people really disappear without a trace, or did they run away for a life anew? Is there a message, a theme overlying the plot of the film that could explain the rash of people in absentia? What about the thing in the tunnel?

Admirably, the plot is actually rather semi-linear, in that it presents alternate threads throughout the events that unfold. Some may take this as the filmmakers lacking confidence in the storyline they were writing, but I think the filmmakers were rather trying to give the audience the means to come to their own interpretation(s). It's something that is sorely lacking in this overburdened genre that lacks true tension and creativity. Remember when horror was both stunning and surprising? Yeah, it's been a long ass time.

I enjoyed the minimalistic soundtrack as well. There's a low, downbeat dark ambient tune that plays throughout most of the film, and it helps establish the mysterious mood that permeates its duration. A few scenes break what could have been a monotonous soundtrack with light rock songs, cleverly integrated into the activities the characters are actually engaging in (in one scene, Callie is jogging while listening to a track on her MP3 player; a little later, she takes off her headphones and the song dies down). 

Couple the intelligent brand of horror, the open-ended plotline, the down-to-earth characters, and the minimalistic but appropriate soundtrack, Absentia is a showcase of what to do with a horror film, no matter the budget & personnel limitations. Those latter two elements of film-making are not good excuses for churning out recycled crap that generates so much mockery of this genre that possesses enormous opportunities.

B+

The Good:

+ Down-to-earth, obscure actors present believable, at-times sympathetic performances.

+ In spite of the miniscule budget, there seemed to be a very natural, stress-free approach taken to the film. Nothing is overly forced or hammy.

+ A subtle breed of horror that builds tension, then shocks the audience without abusing such things for spectacle sake.

+ Open-ended, semi-linear plotline that is open to interpretation.

+ No overt special effects.

The Bad:

- May leave some viewers unsatisfied with the ending.

Rage Against the Capital Punishment Machine (Link)

Copyright © Superbious.com and Garrett Will 2012-2013 All Rights Reserved. 

Take a gander at the goods