No Rights For Anarchists

Is this blog banned in Russia?

Vladimir Putin

I’m not sure. But a friend of mine who’s currently in Kyrgyzstan, connecting to the internet through a Russian server, says he can’t access my blog. Of course it might just be a technical glitch. But maybe Putin is really, really averse to Doctor Who spoilers.

Closer to home, here in the u.s. of a. it turns out that being a “known and admitted anarchist” is grounds for denying someone’s request under the Freedom of Information Act. (CHT François T.)

My favourite bit: the authorities want the information they inadvertently released to be “returned.” I recall a similar request being made of Wikileaks. Our rulers don’t even grasp the concept of information.

, , , ,

11 Responses to No Rights For Anarchists

  1. Michael J. Green June 3, 2011 at 8:59 pm #

    My favourite bit: the authorities want the information they inadvertently released to be “returned.” I recall a similar request being made of Wikileaks. Our rulers don’t even grasp the concept of information.

    Reminds me of this old email prank, where ‘David Thorne’ asks that his digital drawing be returned to him.

  2. mstob June 4, 2011 at 4:02 am #

    Have you heard of the sovereign citizen movement?

    http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/april/sovereigncitizens_041310

    • Roderick June 4, 2011 at 1:23 pm #

      Why do they call themselves “citizens”? I prefer to think of myself as a sovereign person.

    • Jayson Virissimo June 4, 2011 at 8:48 pm #

      The FBI also has a page about “Anarchist Extremism“. Apparently, “having that belief is perfectly legal”. Phew! Looks like you’re safe Professor.

  3. Rankin June 4, 2011 at 8:42 pm #

    Perhaps they grasp the concept of cooperation.

  4. Rankin June 4, 2011 at 8:46 pm #

    In hindsight, no. They do grasp the concept of cooperation, but not the concept of citizenship. Then again, perhaps ‘sovereign citizen’ is supposed to be oxymoronic.

  5. Gene Callahan June 5, 2011 at 10:18 pm #

    “Closer to home, here in the u.s. of a. it turns out that being a ‘known and admitted anarchist’ is grounds for denying someone’s request under the Freedom of Information Act.”

    The government is supposed to be obliged to help those whose goal is to eliminate it?

    • Roderick June 6, 2011 at 2:20 am #

      The government is supposed to be obliged to help those whose goal is to eliminate it?

      If we’re going by their own publicly announced standards, then yes (just as a Republican administration is supposed, by its own standards, to grant Democrats the right to vote it out of office).

      If we’re going by the objectively correct standards, then again yes, since anarchism is the correct position.

  6. Anon73 June 5, 2011 at 11:54 pm #

    The government claims to uphold the rights of all citizens. Denying someone a right given by a law on the basis of religion, national origin, or in this case political beliefs seems rather… odious, don’t you think Gene?

  7. Anastasia de Cleyre June 6, 2011 at 5:33 am #

    For what it’s worth, I’ve just confirmed that you’re not blocked in China.

Leave a Reply to Roderick Click here to cancel reply.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes