Brazil’s internet now has its own bill of rights. On 23 April, the country’s president, Dima Rousseff, signed the Marco Civil da Internet, a bill that sets out new guidelines for freedom of expression, net neutrality and data privacy for the country’s 100 million internet users. (1)
Can freedom be determined by a… law?
Can freedom be determined on the basis of “obligations”?
Can freedom be determined on the bases of “you can’t do that”?
Only when law matures enough that we do not need (not even) one, will we be truly free…
Nintendo criticized for not allowing gay characters in its game.  Austria sends… a man feeling woman with a beard to Eurovision.  Movies promote gay people having children.  Bestiality brothels are ‘spreading through Germany’!!! Animal abusers claim that sex with animals is just a ‘lifestyle choice’. 
When you promote abnormality, then there are consequences…
What would you say if necrophiliacs started having their own brothels? Why not have brothels with… lobsters or octopuses? Does that sound extreme? Why would it? Search the web and what you think is extreme is perfectly normal for other people.
So what is the problem here?
Well, this has nothing to do with the rights of anyone! Not even with the rights of the majority which does not want to be oppressed by the minority (majorities anyway change). It has to do with the rights of nature to define on its own what is “normal” (Gr. “ΦΥΣΙΟλογικό”) without us imposing our own ‘external’ opinion on the matter. It is about us humans being considered as ‘gods’ who can impose their own opinion on what the cosmos is and should be.
And this is philosophical dogmatism at its best and most raw form.
Do not confuse this with politics though. This has nothing to do with respecting all people for what they are and want to do, something to which we all should agree with. All logical progressive people for example would agree that all citizens should have equal rights independently of their sexual orientation. This has to do with imposing the abnormal as the new normal. This has nothing to do with human rights or progressiveness or democracy. It has to do with simply stating the facts. Nothing more. Nothing less (reality has the tendency to be boring, I know).
Take a look outside your window…
Do humans have one hand?
No. They have two.
And that is why all shirts have two sleeves.
But don’t for one second believe that humans who were unlucky enough to lose one of their hands, are not priviledged to use t-shirts or have fewer rights than any other human being!
And no, I do not care whether you reader are gay, straight, bisexual or anything else. And you shouldn’t care of what I am either.
A $1m (£610,000) painting by Pablo Picasso has been won by a US man who paid just 100 euros (£83) for a ticket in an online charity raffle. (1)
Art is and has always been expensive. It is as if the rich want to keep the priviledge of dreams and emotions to themselves. Art was more reachable in the primitive societies than today. A museum cannot accommodate the needs of the masses for intellectual stimulus.
Oppression can take weird forms.
If only the masses wanted more Picasso rather than more iPhones.
Oppression could be targeting willing victims after all…
A premier science museum in North Carolina has sparked some controversy by refusing to show an hour-long film about climate change and rising sea levels. “The suppression of information is not in in the spirit of what a museum ought to do,” says Charles “Pete” Peterson, a marine ecologist at the University of North Carolina’s Institute of Marine Sciences in Morehead City. (1)
But museum officials deny any attempt to avoid the topic. “I have a track record of dealing with these issues head on”, says Emlyn Koster, who directs the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences in Raleigh.
The museum may be in a bit of a delicate position. It is part of a state agency, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. The state government has been perceived as hostile to action on climate change; last year, the legislature passed a bill forbidding the state coastal commission from defining rates of sea-level rise for regulation before 2016. Although Koster is a state employee who is exempt from some civil service protections and serves at the pleasure of Governor Pat McCrory (R), he stresses his independence. “At no time have I been told what to do or what to think”.
Besides the obvious joke here (“define rates of sea level rise for regulation”?!? Are you serious?!?), I believe it is a matter of grave importance to define suppression and oppression here. Not allowing a specific opinion to be heard is suppression. But is it not oppression to impose the hearing of a specific opinion as well? If there are places where the opinion A can be heard, why have the need to impose everyone hosting this opinion, especially when this opinion is mutually exclusive with opinion B?