Jeff Stahler by Jeff Stahler

Jeff Stahler

Comments (10) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Rad-ish

    Rad-ish GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    We know what you’re doing…
    Actually Orwell had no idea that government computers could collect so much data.

  2. Random Nick

    Random Nick said, over 1 year ago

    1984 was supposed to be a cautionary tale, not a manual.

  3. wolfhoundblues1

    wolfhoundblues1 said, over 1 year ago

    @Random Nick


  4. californicated1

    californicated1 said, over 1 year ago

    This is more to do with how an American version of Feliks Dzherzhinsky could function these days.

  5. joe piglet

    joe piglet GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    In Canada we knew this was going on for the last 5 years, just like there were no WMD in Iraq. There was and probably still is the triangle of surveillance UK spies on US, US on Canada, Canada on the UK. This way the governments don’t violate their constitutions.

  6. acellist

    acellist GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Just tooling up for when China calls in their markers!

  7. Michael wme

    Michael wme said, over 1 year ago

    In 1984 there were the supreme leaders in the Inner Party who had lives of luxury and privacy. There were those with very limited power in the Party who lived in shabby conditions and were kept under intense supervision 24/7 with absolutely no privacy. But the government did NOT have the resources to monitor the ordinary proles, who lived in absolute squalor, had no power of any kind, but were allowed to live their lives unobserved.

    Of course, 1984 was set in an impoverished Britain, and, fortunately for everyone in the world, the US has no such limits.

    Only the US President has the necessary information to know what is best for the US and the rest of the world. As the late, great R. M. Nixon said, ‘If the President does it, it’s OK.’ The US President is absolute sovereign for his term of office. He was chosen by the American system, and so can do nothing wrong, but is always the Greatest Force for Good in the Entire World, protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty. Whatever information he says he needs, he MUST have. Whatever actions he takes in support of Good and against Evil must never be questioned. And if he decides that no one should know about some of those actions, it is the worst possible crime to tell anyone, high treason, in fact.

  8. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 1 year ago


    Most people realize that all rights have limits, such as the oft-repeated limitation on yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.

    Determining those limits is and will always be a conundrum.

    Except, of course, the second amendment, which can have no limits under any circumstances.

  9. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 1 year ago

    Actually, Blair (George Orwell) based his projections on extrapolation of his father’s career in the British foreign service, where his job was to increase opium production in Afghanistan to ship it to China, allowing the “empire” to subjugate the Chinese. Their Afghan adventure didn’t end well, did it?

  10. churchillwasright

    churchillwasright said, over 1 year ago

    @I Play One On TV

    According to Wikipedia (take it for what it’s worth) “(falsely) shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a paraphrasing of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.‘s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919, which held that the defendant’s speech in opposition to the draft during World War I was not protected free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

    Holmes, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that it was a violation of the Espionage Act of 1917 (amended with the Sedition Act of 1918), to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a “clear and present danger” to the government’s recruitment efforts for the war.

    “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. […] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

    Justice Holmes began to doubt his decision due to criticism received from Free Speech activists…Holmes’s change of heart influenced his decision to join the minority and dissent in the Abrams v. United States (1919) case. Abrams was deported for issuing flyers saying the US should not intervene in the Russian Revolution. Holmes…said that ‘a silly leaflet by an unknown man’ should not be considered illegal.

    The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot).

    My point is that nothing is set in stone; this is a debate that is healthy to have, and it may yet work its way to the Supreme Court.

    wiki: shouting fire in a crowded theater

  11. Refresh Comments.