Right, I'm talking exactly about the cases you mention (or at least those are the ones I know best). In most states you can't ask nursing mothers to leave, even if they won't cover up. You can't ask black people or women to leave in any state. Once you're open to the public you lose a lot of your ability to say "no".

Common sense tells me there may be monopoly type services that also can't say no (e.g. phone companies) but I'm not aware of any legislation regarding that.

You forget the, I believe, 1971 ruling of your supreme court claiming only the actual theft of top-secret documents as illegal, not the publication of it. And yes, the Espionage Act of 1917 was also taken into consideration back then.
Wikileaks didn't stole the documents, they merely published them. So there's no legal basis for accusing Wikileaks illegal activities. If there would be, we would have an United States against Wikileaks case by now.

"Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people and sending them off to distant lands to die of foreign fevers and foreign shot and shell"
Mr. Justice Black

Take extra time to read the part about responsibilities and duty of a free press if needed. ;)

No. The difference is that the hackers are prosecuted right now and if caught, being brought to justice. The governmental wrong-doings not.

Accessory to a crime (the guy who steals/provides the documents).
It is a grey enough area that it is fully understandable that a privately owned company would steer clear of it.

Will charges be leveled? Who the hell knows. But no reason that a company that CAN get away from it shouldn't. At least, if they want to.

Okay. What is your point? Or are you once again trying to change the subject to an argument of ethics and morality?

Here, I'll do my own tangentially related quote

"I use my credit card to buy soda" - Randon guy on the street


Okay. What is your point? Again, "two wrongs don't make a right", so how is that at all related to this?

Once again no, not trying to change subject. It's a statement from one of the Judges back then in the case that's about as similar as it gets to the whole Wikileaks debatte.

I won't count how many times I stated that the hackers doing is wrong, even clearly marking them as criminals. It's just not even debattable if they are or not, but you keep steering in only that direction, refusing to look left or right, as if this would prove anything.
So, what's YOUR point? I mean other then dismissing any and all attempts to actually discuss the whole thing, instead of proving for yourself and the world that these hackers are not only criminals, but nation endangering terrorists?

Frankly put, I refuse to go any further then this. I tried to be resonable and constructive while sharing my point of view, but I see it as an exercise in futility.

Seconded. Tried to have an intelligent discussion but Sarah Palin repeatedly insisted on steering it towards pedophiles and bombs and animal abuse and just about anything but the thread topic, really.

Palin? Ugh. You might as well say "I hope you get cancer".

Not really a surprise though. The moment a parallel is drawn it is "off topic". But any time simple application of a dictionary is used, we are suddenly switching to a discussion of how the US government is pure evil and is not acting moral.

Seriously though, try not to take things personal. Calling someone Palin is just so totally uncalled for (and really destroys your credibility as someone who thinks for himself).

Now Assange takes on the Vatican! [f..k yeah!]
Now, let's hear how bad anv evil he is.

You are not justifying war crimes... How generous of you. I didn't say that "Arabs" (why not terrorists?) don't kill each other but what I can see on this video is American soldiers firing to van with children inside. And I remember that thing like this also happened in Vietnam so please don't feed me this freedom fighting crap.

parallels can only be used for illustration, not to prove a point. Most of your parallels make use of highly emotionally and morally charged examples, intended to win the argument by evoking some kind of emotional response or discrediting your fellow debater by associating his or her opinion with these ridiculous hyperboles. People recognize this for the bad debating it is and ask for you to stop conjuring up distortions and focus on the *actual* matter at hand, which you ignore. Don't be too surprised that they don't want to play with you anymore.

You were right with your definition of terrorism though! Too bad that there is more too this entire situation than labeling it terrorism or not. People just attempted to address those issues as well.

So, in summary: you go off topic because you make use of ridiculous comparisons, your fellow debaters go `off topic' because there is more to the entire situation than calling something terrorism or not.

So, just to check (so I can learn to debate properly :p).

If I say "Waving an object in someone's face is not terrorism!", nobody is ever allowed to point out the obvious example of "If that object is a gun, it is probably intended to instill terror"?

COOL! This makes stuff a lot easier. Thanks :p

As for the rest of the situation: Yeah, there is a lot more. But that isn't what was really being discussed at the time.
Like I said. The CIA engages in terrorism on a regular basis. Hell, the US was kind of founded on it (George Washington :p). Maybe it is morally/ethically right, that is not really something you can debate ("My morals are righter than yours!"). But you CAN come to an agreement on the actual FACTS of a situation.
And to try and use morality as an argument for why hacking servers and taking people's bank accounts hostage is NOT terrorism, you are just doing what everyone always accuses the government (and FOX news :p) of.

Technically, that's assault, not terrorism. You would be arrested for assault and menacing and prosecuted for those crimes in the US.

According to your definition:
any crime commited with a gun or knife = terrorism
a punk shoving a granny away = terrorism
yaywalking, forcing a car to stop = terrorism

You basically just admited to have no clue about the actual laws being in force, you're just supporting a specific dictonary-definition.

I did? Wow, thanks for informing me.

Once again, from dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

More importantly
"the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes"

As for violence
"swift and intense force"
"an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws"

So of your three examples:
any crime involving a gun or knife: Quite probably counts as terrorism. Use of a weapon (threat) to intimidate and/or coerce. I would posit requiring the "for political purposes" angle, if you want a less specific one.

"a punk shoving a granny away": If they are trying to intimidate or coerce her into doing something, probably. But if it is just senseless violence (which is more what you depicted), then not really. Just plain violence.

"jaywalking/forcing a car to stop": That one is a pretty grey area. If you count "If you run me over, your car will get dented" as intimidation or coercion, maybe. But again, I would posit requiring the "for political purposes"


But, so that LordCinnamon won't get angry, I would have to say that you are making ridiculous comparisons to go off topic. For shame :p

For those playing at home:
Hacking/DDOS'ing the servers counts as a "swift and intense force". It was CLEARLY done to intimidate and coerce. And it was political as hell. So I guess dictionary.com mus be wrong :p

Hey, I'm just playing by the rules you enforce on anybody else. :p
But I have to admit it DOES get funnier by the minute.
According to this, the attack on the twin towers on 9/11 was NOT terrorism. Just sensless violence. At least not from the beginning as no one stepped up to claim responsibility for the attack immediately - which means no political purpose. I remember the first speech of president Bush after the attack, claiming "we will find out who did it and why they did it".

Also a large chunck of bombs going up (specificaly Iraq, but not resticted to) are done without anyone claiming responsibility - again, no terrorism, just senseless violence.

Oh I forgot, if you come up with destabilisation as political purpose - we finally have something in our hands against those financial speculants, as they clearly destabilised Greece and Irland. :D