If we destroy human rights and rule of law in the response to terrorism, they have won.

I agree that it is not just the extremists who harbor bad thoughts or engage in bad acts, but they are usually the source of the polarization and try to keep education and communication of the main stream from moving forward.

Liberty, freedom and democracy are very fuzzy words, but human rights is very specific.

The US constitution's First Amendment rights only cover Americans, but I believe that in a democracy the competition of ideas and free speech should combat beliefs that it does not agree with - more speech and debate, not censorship.

I have had a great deal of interaction with Koreans and feel a fairly strong bond with Korea.

It would be easy to define terrorism as attacks against human rights and international humanitarian law forbids attacks against innocent non-combatants which is often the definition used for terrorism.

We discussed the history of postwar Japan and how Japan had missed an opportunity to build a more functional democracy because of the focus on fighting communism driven in large part by the American occupation.

I definitely feel like my blog is going edgy to broad and boring.

I just believe that the cost of marketing is going to increase and the cost of delivery is going to decrease as the Net gets stronger and mass media gets weaker.

For some reason, I grew up generally believing that Japan and Korea were quite friendly. I do know that there is some bad history and the extremists on both sides are unreasonable.

But my question is, am I compromising by adapting my words for the audience and where is the line beyond which I am not adapting words, but changing my position?

Internet penetration in Italy is quite low and the Berlusconi media machine controls most of what people see.

Now that our media companies and it appears are policies are traded for cash, what is there to check the continuing consolidation of power and diminishing of democracy?

Most creative work is a process of people passing ideas and inspirations from the past into the future and adding their own creativity along the way.

We talked about the Internet and Wikipedia and how facts and history are being collectively created online.

I talked about the barriers created by monopolies. I said that it was the role of government to break up these monopolies and that we couldn't do it alone.

I have always viewed my role as a sort of ambassador or bridge between groups to help provide a dialog.

Money creates a power relationship between the payer and the payee.

When there is a huge force pressing down on freedoms, sub-cultures with more creativity and power are likely to form.

I noticed that democracy was broken and tried to work on fixing that in Japan. Then I realized that it was broken all over the place and decided to work on that too.

The most important thing I learned in school was how to touch type.

The idea of trying to fight against extremism was written off as naive.

If we destroy human rights and rule of law in the response to terrorism, they have won.

Upholding human rights is not merely compatible with fighting terrorism, it is essential.

In a world where discovery is more important than delivery, it's the people who find, remix and direct attention to old stuff that should be rewarded, not the people who deliver it or sit on it waiting for someone to show up.

Google is in an amazing position to be the target of tons of lawsuits that will set precedent for many important things for us on the Internet.

We have a long way to go before we are able to hear the voices of everyone on earth, but I believe that providing voices and building bridges is essential for the World Peace we all wish for.

There was a very convincing argument made that the extremists have won and the aggression is now supported by the majority, therefore fighting until surrender was the only alternative.

You look at the whole Human Rights questions, I happened to be there at just the right time when the country was awakening - this goes to the first question you asked - the whole country was awakening to a hundred years of injustice that hadn't been resolved yet.

To me, a feminist belongs in the same category as a humanist or an advocate for human rights. I don't see why someone who's a feminist should be thought of differently.

There are two things that I put my focus on. One is the fight against AIDS and finding a cure. The other is human rights.

I have great confidence in the universal value and in basic human rights and I have great confidence that referenda will eventually take root and become part of our daily lives in Taiwan.

When we criticize in Iran the actions of the government, the fundamentalists say that we and the Bush Administration are in the same camp. The funny thing is that human rights activists and Mr. Bush can never be situated in the same group.

The issue of human rights is one of the most fundamental human issues and also one of the most sensitive and controversial.

Our country, like every modern state, needs profound democratic reforms. It needs political and ideological pluralism, a mixed economy and protection of human rights and the opening up of society.

Liberty, freedom and democracy are very fuzzy words, but human rights is very specific.

It may be an extreme example brought about by abnormal circumstances - but the criteria of human rights kick in, surely, precisely when the conditions are extreme and the situation is abnormal.

The United Nations has a critical role to play in promoting stability, security, democracy, human rights, and economic development. The UN is as relevant today as at any time in its history, but it needs reform.

Our strategic dialogue with China can both protect American interests and uphold our principles, provided we are honest about our differences on human rights and other issues and provided we use a mix of targeted incentives and sanctions to narrow these differences.

The idea of human rights as a fundamental principle can be seen to underlie throughout Islamic teachings.

The UN declaration on human rights must always be first in line before religion or other cultural habits, in case of any conflict between them.

All governments should be pressured to correct their abuses of human rights.

We all would like to see a brighter future for Haiti, and I hope this conference will serve to explore many views. Respect for human rights, freedom, and the rule of law must be established in the poorest nation in our hemisphere.

The E.U. is more than just a trade organization or a common market; it is a guarantee of democracy, freedom, justice, and human rights. Nations cannot stay in the E.U. if they do not respect these guarantees.

However, if the religions in essence merely repeat statements from the United Nations Human Rights Declaration, such a Declaration becomes superfluous; an ethic is more than rights.

There is no contradiction between effective law enforcement and respect for civil and human rights. Dr. King did not stir us to move for our civil rights to have them taken away in these kinds of fashions.

Cultural variety is always worth striving for, but must never precede the declaration of human rights.

Moreover, as we live in an era of the ascendancy of democracy and human rights, we must see that Taiwan has been a vibrant democracy with a democratically elected president and legislature.

The UN Commission on Human Rights, whose membership in recent years has included countries - such as Libya and Sudan - which have deplorable human rights records, and the recent Oil-for-Food scandal, are just a few examples of why reform is so imperative.