• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

how would you judge the partisan lean of the Electronic Frontier Foundation

Lean of the EFF

  • 1) Leans strongly right

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • 2) leans slight right

    Votes: 1 12.5%

  • 3) Non-partisan

    Votes: 5 62.5%

  • 4) Leans slightly left

    Votes: 2 25.0%

  • 5) Leans strongly left

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    8
Left and right are terms that are not particularly useful, I find. The EFF champions free speech. That is a position embraced by both the left and the right. Unfortunately, our politics involves shoving everything into a partisan hole, and then dividing ourselves up merely based on that partisan designation instead of the actual merits. It comes out on the side of anonymous internet use (and thus protects groups like Anonymous) and supports Wikileaks. I imagine that elements like that will label them left leaning.

It is a terrible shame that free speech and privacy need to be subject to partisan politics.
 
Redress said:
Damn, you could make an argument for left, right and libertarian.
Click to expand...

social conservatives likely wouldn't agree with the right lean. This is why I would say either non partisan or slightly left.
 
I would say that they are a specific topic lean, and like myself, have specific positions on specific issues that are unrelated to "leans".

This presumption of (mandatory - self imposed) partisanship is really affecting us all, and not for the good. Look at some partisan posters - if the right does it it's automatically good even when it obviously isn't. Same for the lest. What every happened to individual thought process?
 
ARealConservative said:
social conservatives likely wouldn't agree with the right lean. This is why I would say either non partisan or slightly left.
Click to expand...

You can get to defending "rights" from a right wing perspective. Without looking more into what they are actually working on, specific cases and such, I can't judge if they are actually defending rights, but you certainly can argue that type position from a right wing perspective. It is odd, but I end up in odd congruence sometimes with some of the conservative posters on the board, but we get to those congruent positions from entirely different sets of logic.
 
specklebang said:
I would say that they are a specific topic lean, and like myself, have specific positions on specific issues that are unrelated to "leans".

This presumption of (mandatory - self imposed) partisanship is really affecting us all, and not for the good. Look at some partisan posters - if the right does it it's automatically good even when it obviously isn't. Same for the lest. What every happened to individual thought process?
Click to expand...

This is the motivation behind this thread

I posted a link from that organization and a liberal poster discounted it immediately as an extreme right wing website because it was critical of Obama and his call for a transparent government.
 
Copyright protection is a big issue, IMHO. Many "file sharing" sites are available for obtaining copyrighted material; that is not "free speech" if it is aiding theft of cpoyrighted intellectual property. I often wonder when I post links (on this forum) to music, art and video material if I am doing so legally; I never claim the work as my own or (intentionally) alter it but I do share (links to) it without paying any royalties.
 
Libertarian, but of the particular internet sort of libertarian.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Copyright protection is a big issue, IMHO. Many "file sharing" sites are available for obtaining copyrighted material; that is not "free speech" if it is aiding theft of cpoyrighted intellectual property. I often wonder when I post links (on this forum) to music, art and video material if I am doing so legally; I never claim the work as my own or (intentionally) alter it but I do share (links to) it without paying any royalties.
Click to expand...

considering the founder was a song writer for the Grateful Dead, I assume they agree with intellectual property but would like to roll back recent changes in this regard.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Many "file sharing" sites are available for obtaining copyrighted material;/
Click to expand...

1. The sites themselves may be, but often if you're talking websites the reputable ones try to keep up - if you're talking about protocols like bitTorrent, etc, it's the UERS - big fdifference, IMO.
2. The issue is n "sharing copyrighted materials" - it's "sharing copyrighted materials illegally [as in, without permission], that's a big difference - if I share a work somebody gave m permission to share, I;m sharing copyrighted work [unless the creator put it in public domain], but not illegally. That is one thing I HATE about the RIAA, etc in their attempts at "education" - they make stupid errors like that I addressed in my post, and it gets wrongly repeated as gospel.

[And no, whether I know what you meant or not is irrelevant :p ]
 
Travelsonic said:
1. The sites themselves may be, but often if you're talking websites the reputable ones try to keep up - if you're talking about protocols like bitTorrent, etc, it's the UERS - big fdifference, IMO.
2. The issue is n "sharing copyrighted materials" - it's "sharing copyrighted materials illegally [as in, without permission], that's a big difference - if I share a work somebody gave m permission to share, I;m sharing copyrighted work [unless the creator put it in public domain], but not illegally. That is one thing I HATE about the RIAA, etc in their attempts at "education" - they make stupid errors like that I addressed in my post, and it gets wrongly repeated as gospel.

[And no, whether I know what you meant or not is irrelevant :p ]
Click to expand...

I am not sure that I understand your point here. If I want a song I can either buy it from iTunes, or I can often simply get that song (with video) from YouTube for free. I avoid sites like this, besides being a great source of virus software, they are giving away copyrighted material: LimeWire Music - Download
 
Only my opinion, I voted "non-partisan".
Free speech (completely), has never been 100% and can never be.
 
Freedom on the internet is increasingly unpopular in both main parties, but remains highly popular with the majority of the populace. I wouldn't say this position has any "lean." It's anti-political machine, and pro-citizen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom