So what, in your mind, makes a blind person "capable" of using a (visual-oriented) web site?
The simple fact that they can use the web.
Are you kidding? How the fuck do you think the software the blind person uses works? By converting text to speech. didn't you read the article?
A well constructed website with the intenet of providing information and services (such as the SWA site) should be easily representable with text (perhaps in addition to the glitzier media), something that the blind can deal with with the help of special software.
So, does that give the State the right to consider his interests more imporant than my rights?
What, are you new here (the US or the planet)? Of course the state has rights to do things like this. The state has the right to make laws (as defined and limited by the constituion). Every act of goverment is a compromise - a trade off of benefits from one group to another (i'll avoid the loaded word "right"). This applies to every government ever. The ADA is a concession, like many laws, that makes sure the forces of the free market and "majority rules" doesn't destroy a particular minoritiy. US history is littered with these concession, in our very form of government was constucted with this principle in mind.
Does the ADA personally put you out? How much? It makes the world of difference for blind and disabled people.
Well there are discrimination laws, and then there is the ADA. They aren't really the same thing, though they are related. Presumably, this blind guy is suing because he feels SWA is not compliance with the ADA (which has, BTW, has been on the books for years - all you people sound like you've never heard of it).
I think anti-discrimination practices can get carried away, and what we have is my no means perfect, but come on, are you being obtuse or what? Why do you assume that the only valid options are the extreme ends of the scale: no anti-discrimination laws or protection for every stupid thing under the sun in an equal manner. This is real life, real people, not some logical exercise on your computer.
As far as your questions go, I don't think companies should be allowed to discriminate based on religious preference unless their is some significant religious aspect to the business, for example, a church shouldn't have to hire an atheist organist. I don't know what the law is on this, but every company I have ever worked for has promised not to discriminate based on lots of factors. Why, probably becasue of the law.
What factors should be protected? Things you can't change: color of your skin, nationality, sex, age to some extent. Religon, because it's so ripe for abuse. Hair, dress, smell and all the examples you brought up, probably not.
How long have you been working to overturn the ADA? I mean, the law has been on the books for ages, so I know you've been working to overturn that, all the civil rights acts, all anti-discrimination laws, and all the other laws separating us from a nice neat randian anarchy? Yeah I am/was being sarcastic.
The guy is completely within his rights to sue because (possibly) SWA is not in compliance with this law. He shouldn't be the target of peoples misgivings about the ADA.
I'd rather not get into a philosophical discussion with you, but this is the way things are in the US: the government passes laws to protect the weak and minorities. Have you ever heard the phrase "the tyranny of the majority".
IMO, requiring businesses to provide accesibility measures for the disabled is a justified restriction to place on the non-disabled. Consider that without the accesibility laws, businesses don't provide them on their own good will, and the disabled are unable to function even if they are capable. Who do you think is going to end up taking care of the disabled if that were the case? The government, likely. Unless you think we should let them starve in the streets.
Put yourself in the blind guys shoes for a minute - consider how lucky you are.
Yeah!! Any why should companies have to hire blacks and women if they don't want to?
I don't think there are enough blind people or disabled people to make it profitable for most companies to accomodate them. That's why the law was put in place, as a measure of human decency that allows these people to function normally in society.
What does anything mean? Nothing concrete, except what is understood in either a mainstream way or between particular parties. Hence, my comment about "dead" which is more ambiguous than the term "semi-pro" in my opinion.
As you say, different strokes for different folks.
Why don't you use that dictionary of yours to look up "semipro" or "semiprofessional",too? MW online shows that term being at least as old as 1900. Like it or not, it's a valid term used in the modern world, your clever but inaccurate "pregnancy" analogy notwithstanding.
Maybe you should step out of your "tiny sphere in which you reside"?
Personally, I don't think film is "dead" either, but what the hell does dead mean anyway? People still use latin, but they call it a "dead" language. Dead used in this context usually means "no longer mainstream", which of course it doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing, IMO.
So if a message has been spoken once, the government can restrict you from saying it again? That's a pretty bizarre stance in general. But even if it were fine in general, you're still agreeing with me that it is a restriction. A restriction is another word for abridgement, I think.
What if the government said, "you can't disagree with our policies in public unless you wear a t-shirt with the words 'hippie communist' on it". By your logic, since the government is letting the message out, this restiction doesn't violate the principle of "freedom of speech". However, the courts have constantly found that restrictions like these do go against the first ammendment, but they may or may not be justified in light of other considerations (safety, other pieces of the constitution, privacy, etc).
Suppose there was a peace rally and someone yelled "no war in iraq". Could the government then restrict other people saying that since the message is already out?
I'm just trying to illustrate that any restriction (justified or not) can be a real and possibly significant restriction. Don't be fooled that just because we've had 200 years of ever increasing copyright protection that it makes the concept of copyright or other IP some how a fundamental right of existence.
Don't think that I am overlooking the fact that the concept of free speech can be tempered by other concerns.
HAND
The founding fathers also wrote the constitution, not just the Declaration.
The declaration, while nice, goes nowhere near defining a government. The letter is at some level just rhethoric "when a government is abusive, it is the right of the people to revolt = yada yada yada" - this is an observation of first principles and in no way stems from the declaration. Rebellions fail. Revolutions succeed.
You can argue until you are blue in the fact that the declaration should have legal ramifications, but that won't make it so.
The ruling official Church in England, as it is now, was Anglican, which is definitely not Catholic.
Like it or not, "many of the initial documents and opinions and thoughts of so many of the Founders", while historically and philosophically interesting, have no legal bearing on the US government.
I have no use for extreme political correctness. I don't believe in "necessary editing" of the past. I frankly don't know where you're going with or coming from on that one.
There are civil liberties that have increased sice the days of the founding fathers, especially with regards to the protection of speech, the definition of due process, increase in effective religious freedoms etc. Many of these improvements would likely have been disliked by the founding fathers. Determining this with accuracy is an impossible task: they are dead, afterall. The declaration of independence leaves many matters in too vague a state, to be sure (plus it has no authority, as I may have previuosly mentioned).
I agree that the Declaration of Independence expresses some very sound ideas. However, relying on the "vision" or opinions of these dead men to sway our legal decisions is probably a bad idea, on the whole. For example, how many opinions held by this small group of men can we identify that would be reprehensible today? I'll start:
slavery is OK
property ownership required for citizenship
no suffarage for women
no explicit right to privacy
...
That's why I'd much rather have the ammendable and interpretable constituation than some persons notion of what the Founding Fathers would have wanted (WWFFD - what would the founding fathers do?). For example, you'll hear some people justify a partial theocracy based on their believe that all the founding fathers were christian (even though all of them weren't) rather than trying to deal with the intent of the 1st ammendment, which they wrote. This founding father interpretation is a slippery slope.
I can spend no more time trying to convince you of this obvious point. You've never seen any example only because you've totally lost sight of what the source and purpose of copyright are.
if you have original thoughts and ideas you are still free to express them....
You just gave yourself an example - you seem to think that "freedom of speech" == "freedom of original speech".
Do you realize that "original" is not part of the 1st ammendment? IMHO, the strictest interpretation of what "freedom of speech" means: the government can't restrict what you say or how or where you say it, and furthermore "say" can be replace with write, show, play, etc for all expressive mediums.
The government does restrict this concept, of course, in many cases, some of them justified. One of the largest restrictions is copyright. If you copyright something today, I will never in my lifetime have complete unrestricted use of those words (or whatever is copyrighted), unless I live to well over 130.
Your example: singing in the rain. Is it impossible to sing it in some contexts? yes. Freedome of speech restricted.
Again, I'm not trying to completly damn copyright with this argument, but people should realize what it is: copyright is a restriction on speech justified by another section of the US constitution. Only from that common knowledge can you reasonable discuss proper terms/lengths/etc for copyright and other IP
Sure, I agree with this post. But is the Constituation by itself enough to know that we are not under Brittish rule? Probably.:)
I acknowledge that the Constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum. However, the sway of popular opinion weakly expressed through the interpretations of the judicial system have more of an impact on the constitution than the Declaration of independence ever will. Both are on similar legal footing (i.e. poor) when it comes to their legitimacy as factors for modifying the intent of the Constitution.
You assume that I am an opponent of Copyright, but your assumption is unjustified. That copyright restricts freedom of speech is clear from the most simple analysis. Wherther it is justified or not is another argument.
There are (very many) strings of words that I am prohibitied by law from saying in certain manners or places or contexts. Furthermore, there are tunes, melodies, trivial sequences of guitar chords, images, algorithms, etc that are similarly restricted.
Is that restriction justified? That's a separate question. I would sometimes say yes, but it's irrelevant to the assertion I made and which you called "rediculous" (sic).
It's really a sad commentary on the entrencment that intellectual property has in the American Psyche that I have to explain this simple fact:
1. Person A copyrights a string of words
2. Person B is restricted in using that string of words in time, manner, and place.
QED. Copyright abridges freedom of speech. I'm not arguing that Copyright or intellectual property are worthless, but that people should realize what it really is: a limited time government granted partial monopoly on thoughts, ideas, words, strings of bits, music, numbers, whaterver. IOW, restrictions on what people can say, write, play, etc.
If i were going to enumerate my concept of fundamental rights from most important to least important, life, liberty, freedom of speech, self-determination, etc. would be way up at the top. Copyright wouldn't even show up on the list.
You might disagree, but legally speaking it's true. The Declaration certainly has historical significance, and perhaps even a philosophical relevance, as you say, but it is irrelevant legally. For example, I would be suprised if the supreme court ever consoluted that document in any legal review. I'll say it again: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nowehere in the constitution does it defer any legal authority to the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or any other prior document.
The rights enumerated in the Declaration have no legal bearing on the US government. This is not the same thing as saying the document is worthless from a philosophical, historical, or moral perspective.
LOL!!! I love it when people misread something, and then post about it. Ha Ha! That's funny! I misread something, and then it was funny. Think about it! FUNNY - because it doesn't really say that. Am I the only one, or what? ROTFLMAO.
The final opinion that I'd like to voice is the fact that title exclusivity is a *good* thing. For console manufacturers, exclusivity gives consumers a clear reason to buy their machine over all the others that are available.
Title exclusivity is good for the console manufacturer, not the console buyer. I don't think anyone would argue with the first part of that: obviously, that is why MS and others buy up the companies or otherwise restrict them. But it would appear that you are saying console exlusivity is good for the consumer, which seems like utter bollocks to me. You get much greater free market pressure which tend to lower consumer costs if the things in the market are able to compete in all aspects. If only one manufacturer makes a particular console, then for that narrowly defined market, you have no competition, no free market, etc.
As far as the different versions go, what if this soccer game was only made for your console, then they never came out with a better version for the X-Box. How would that be any different for you? None, in the final summation.
Slashdot Mirror
The simple fact that they can use the web. Are you kidding? How the fuck do you think the software the blind person uses works? By converting text to speech. didn't you read the article?
A well constructed website with the intenet of providing information and services (such as the SWA site) should be easily representable with text (perhaps in addition to the glitzier media), something that the blind can deal with with the help of special software.
HAND
What, are you new here (the US or the planet)? Of course the state has rights to do things like this. The state has the right to make laws (as defined and limited by the constituion). Every act of goverment is a compromise - a trade off of benefits from one group to another (i'll avoid the loaded word "right"). This applies to every government ever. The ADA is a concession, like many laws, that makes sure the forces of the free market and "majority rules" doesn't destroy a particular minoritiy. US history is littered with these concession, in our very form of government was constucted with this principle in mind.
Does the ADA personally put you out? How much? It makes the world of difference for blind and disabled people.
What do you want, an anarchy?
I think anti-discrimination practices can get carried away, and what we have is my no means perfect, but come on, are you being obtuse or what? Why do you assume that the only valid options are the extreme ends of the scale: no anti-discrimination laws or protection for every stupid thing under the sun in an equal manner. This is real life, real people, not some logical exercise on your computer.
As far as your questions go, I don't think companies should be allowed to discriminate based on religious preference unless their is some significant religious aspect to the business, for example, a church shouldn't have to hire an atheist organist. I don't know what the law is on this, but every company I have ever worked for has promised not to discriminate based on lots of factors. Why, probably becasue of the law.
What factors should be protected? Things you can't change: color of your skin, nationality, sex, age to some extent. Religon, because it's so ripe for abuse. Hair, dress, smell and all the examples you brought up, probably not.
The guy is completely within his rights to sue because (possibly) SWA is not in compliance with this law. He shouldn't be the target of peoples misgivings about the ADA.
I'd rather not get into a philosophical discussion with you, but this is the way things are in the US: the government passes laws to protect the weak and minorities. Have you ever heard the phrase "the tyranny of the majority".
IMO, requiring businesses to provide accesibility measures for the disabled is a justified restriction to place on the non-disabled. Consider that without the accesibility laws, businesses don't provide them on their own good will, and the disabled are unable to function even if they are capable. Who do you think is going to end up taking care of the disabled if that were the case? The government, likely. Unless you think we should let them starve in the streets.
Put yourself in the blind guys shoes for a minute - consider how lucky you are.
Cheers
Yeah!! Any why should companies have to hire blacks and women if they don't want to?
I don't think there are enough blind people or disabled people to make it profitable for most companies to accomodate them. That's why the law was put in place, as a measure of human decency that allows these people to function normally in society.
As you say, different strokes for different folks.
HaND
Maybe you should step out of your "tiny sphere in which you reside"?
Personally, I don't think film is "dead" either, but what the hell does dead mean anyway? People still use latin, but they call it a "dead" language. Dead used in this context usually means "no longer mainstream", which of course it doesn't mean it's not worth pursuing, IMO.
What if the government said, "you can't disagree with our policies in public unless you wear a t-shirt with the words 'hippie communist' on it". By your logic, since the government is letting the message out, this restiction doesn't violate the principle of "freedom of speech". However, the courts have constantly found that restrictions like these do go against the first ammendment, but they may or may not be justified in light of other considerations (safety, other pieces of the constitution, privacy, etc).
Suppose there was a peace rally and someone yelled "no war in iraq". Could the government then restrict other people saying that since the message is already out?
I'm just trying to illustrate that any restriction (justified or not) can be a real and possibly significant restriction. Don't be fooled that just because we've had 200 years of ever increasing copyright protection that it makes the concept of copyright or other IP some how a fundamental right of existence.
Don't think that I am overlooking the fact that the concept of free speech can be tempered by other concerns. HAND
That's why I'd much rather have the ammendable and interpretable constituation than some persons notion of what the Founding Fathers would have wanted (WWFFD - what would the founding fathers do?). For example, you'll hear some people justify a partial theocracy based on their believe that all the founding fathers were christian (even though all of them weren't) rather than trying to deal with the intent of the 1st ammendment, which they wrote. This founding father interpretation is a slippery slope.
BTW, I'm not accusing you of those things.
HAND
You just gave yourself an example - you seem to think that "freedom of speech" == "freedom of original speech".
Do you realize that "original" is not part of the 1st ammendment? IMHO, the strictest interpretation of what "freedom of speech" means: the government can't restrict what you say or how or where you say it, and furthermore "say" can be replace with write, show, play, etc for all expressive mediums.
The government does restrict this concept, of course, in many cases, some of them justified. One of the largest restrictions is copyright. If you copyright something today, I will never in my lifetime have complete unrestricted use of those words (or whatever is copyrighted), unless I live to well over 130.
Your example: singing in the rain. Is it impossible to sing it in some contexts? yes. Freedome of speech restricted.
Again, I'm not trying to completly damn copyright with this argument, but people should realize what it is: copyright is a restriction on speech justified by another section of the US constitution. Only from that common knowledge can you reasonable discuss proper terms/lengths/etc for copyright and other IP
I acknowledge that the Constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum. However, the sway of popular opinion weakly expressed through the interpretations of the judicial system have more of an impact on the constitution than the Declaration of independence ever will. Both are on similar legal footing (i.e. poor) when it comes to their legitimacy as factors for modifying the intent of the Constitution.
There are (very many) strings of words that I am prohibitied by law from saying in certain manners or places or contexts. Furthermore, there are tunes, melodies, trivial sequences of guitar chords, images, algorithms, etc that are similarly restricted. Is that restriction justified? That's a separate question. I would sometimes say yes, but it's irrelevant to the assertion I made and which you called "rediculous" (sic).
1. Person A copyrights a string of words
2. Person B is restricted in using that string of words in time, manner, and place.
QED. Copyright abridges freedom of speech. I'm not arguing that Copyright or intellectual property are worthless, but that people should realize what it really is: a limited time government granted partial monopoly on thoughts, ideas, words, strings of bits, music, numbers, whaterver. IOW, restrictions on what people can say, write, play, etc.
If i were going to enumerate my concept of fundamental rights from most important to least important, life, liberty, freedom of speech, self-determination, etc. would be way up at the top. Copyright wouldn't even show up on the list.
The rights enumerated in the Declaration have no legal bearing on the US government. This is not the same thing as saying the document is worthless from a philosophical, historical, or moral perspective.
Copyright isn't a right - it's a set of laws that restrict the right to freedom of speech (right or wrong).
HTH
Title exclusivity is good for the console manufacturer, not the console buyer. I don't think anyone would argue with the first part of that: obviously, that is why MS and others buy up the companies or otherwise restrict them. But it would appear that you are saying console exlusivity is good for the consumer, which seems like utter bollocks to me. You get much greater free market pressure which tend to lower consumer costs if the things in the market are able to compete in all aspects. If only one manufacturer makes a particular console, then for that narrowly defined market, you have no competition, no free market, etc.
As far as the different versions go, what if this soccer game was only made for your console, then they never came out with a better version for the X-Box. How would that be any different for you? None, in the final summation.
HTH