A citation is needed though for the assertion that companies that practice censorship go out of business. There is a theoretical framework, but I question if it has ever really happened. Please justify your theory with evidence.
Is it not a violation of rights to tax (force) me to pay for something which I don't agree with
Correct. Societies need to come together to accomplish some goals. Taxes are one way people come together ( conscription is another) to share burdens. Because people lie and to avoid free-rider problems, we cannot allow people to opt out of given programs. The act of shouldering a burden for society is called a beneficent act.
Is it not a violation of rights for corporations to imprison me?
Corporations cannot imprision you. The earlier point was that governments can imprision you while corporations cannot. Why the government imprisions you getermines if is a violation of your rights. Is it because of your race or your speech -- or is it because you killed you wife?
What happened to the meme that things "on the Internet" should be governed in the same manner as things in meatspace?
I've never heard that meme; I've commonly heard the opposite.
I'm pretty absolutist on free speech issues, but the idea that people are somehow guaranteed a platform to speak for free has little historical or constitutional justification.
I take a positive view of rights. Not only should society not infringe on your right to free speech, it should help enable you communicate. It should give you tools such as an education so that you can communicate.
For that matter, if people have an individual rights to guns (notice the "if" if you disagree with that right) the government should take reasonable steps to encourage you to be able to purchase them.
There is a line of course, such as cost. The government shouldn't provide everyone a TV station. But there is some effort that is reasonable.
I'd argue it's a lot cheaper for someone to put their views forward on the Internet than it ever was in, say, 18th-19th century America.
I'd agree. I'd argue that is why it wasn't reasonable for the government to provide a positive right back then, but it is reasonable now. It's merely a matter of legally curtailing corporate censorship.
I also don't hear much about how this supposed regulation of ISPs would come about.
Net neutrality seems hard? You legally make it so. Technically, it's just a matter of not doing what they are currently not doing.
If you don't like how private parties censor the Internet, do you really believe you'd be happier with a system where the government gets to determine who can say what?
That's a false dichotomy. No one is advocating the latter. I am advocating the government enforce fairness on he corporations.
'm a lot more comfortable with a system where the means of speech reside in private hands since that insures one of those pairs of hands can be my own.
I'd rather my right to free speech be backed up by the force of law and the US Constitution, then by how big a bat I can swing. Personally, I own 0% of the backbone connetions, or any wire outside my house. I own a couple of domains, and one connection that I cannot host on. I cannot afford more than that, personall. I doubt you can afford much more than that. What happens when your local ISP doesn't like your site. Or your customer's ISP doesn't like it? Or anyone in between doesn't like it.
In essence the author buys in to the erroneous belief that what matters are the decisions made by a few large players like Flickr or GoDaddy because that happens to be where a lot of people congregate.
He knows that the internet has many sites. But he also knows that network effects mean that only a few are important within any community are important. They are important. I have 2 ISPs I can choose from. I have to go over ATamp;T's backbone to get to many sites. I have to find sites on a search engine.
Did you read that link? The wikipage has a string of warnings at the top that iit needs citations, cleanup, etc. It's also an eCommerce site that went out of business when the bubble burst; it doesn't relate to censorship at all.
The only difference? Step 2 isn't actually necessary, since you don't need a lawyer to verify tablature doesn't include a recording of the song or a portion thereof, since it isn't even physically possible.
In clean room design, the people creating the new work have never been exposed to the previous work. When writing tab, they have been. A song can be copyrighted as lyrics and notes, in addition to each derivative recording being copyrighted.
Why would they have to buy agent orange from the government? They could easily manufacture it themselves. Probably more efficiently than the government could.
Monsanto did make Agent Orange more efficently then the government could. It sold it to the US government during the Vietnam War. The GP was just making the point that they unleashed a horror on the world.
In a truly free market, people wouldn't have to pay taxes
Would there be police forces, or is a free market an anarchy? If it is an anarchy, what prevents a large gang from taking over as an autocratic government?
In those conditions racism, sexism, and etc. don't fly.
Then explain why racism, sexism, etc. have decreased as a result of the US moving away from a free market.
We would also have virtually 0 monopolies
Same question as above, but with "monopolies" instead of "racism, sexism, etc."
Seems to me like the constitution says that anything not in the constitution is supposed to belong to the states
Please reread it. It says a) Certain things belong to the people as individual rights; b) The federal government has some enumerated powers, which cannot be used to infringe on people's rights; c) Everything else belongs to the states.
The current system is pretty stable, and pretty cruel. I tend to tack to the other side. Since corporations are able to inflict harms because of their concentration of wealth (and the power it brings) I favor redistributing (to some degree) that wealth. Whether that is redistribution as checks to citizens, or via government programs, I'm not sure of yet.
a truly free market (no IP law, no official currency, just practical trade)
Are you advocating bartering? Becuase that seems to impose huge costs on each transaction. Otherwise, you need offical currency. Why IP law would not be part of a free market, but physical property law is, I'll never understand.
Can you explain to me how a corporation like Monsanto is a threat without having a government to buy IP law from?
No. All complaints about corporations go away when you start removing property rights, as that is from whence their power is derived. Without a government monopoly on currency, corporations wouldn't be able to force people to get RFID chips, or take drug tests, or not keep private blogs. But communism, while it would solve that issue, has other negative effects. So maybe we start by limiting the harms corporations can do, and work from there?
I don't find anything you just said to be a violation of individual rights, depending on why people are jailed. Wars happen. Conscription and taxes are considered beneficent acts that can be forced on people, even by JSM.
You have a company. You hire a salesman to go out and demonstrate your product. The salesman offends your customers by constantly telling crude sex jokes to them, while he shows your product. Is it his right to say whatever he wants? After all, it's free speech and legal.
Nope, just as there are times when sex/creed discrimination is legal. The employer has a right to be concerned with job performance.
You own a preschool. The teacher tells the kids all about her sexual exploits the night before. Is it her right to do that? It's free speech, after all.
Actually, the Supreme Court would probably rule it was obscene and not subject ot free speech protection.
The article makes the basic mainstream journalism mistake that used to happen when some reporter would confuse AOL with the internet
No, it doesn't. It talks about censorship by Flickr, webhosting companies and ISPs. RTFA before you complain about it.
Not the example parent post was looking for, but, many slashdot users use firefox instead of explorer, in part because of concerns about microsoft business practices interfering with online freedoms
Most slashdot users that use windows seem to avoid IE for stability/security reasons. And IE still is the dominant browser in the world. And websites still have to conform to the IE way of rendering things, possibly in addition to the Firefox/Safari/Opera way. So I claim it is a counterexample of what you are looking for.
Because you are making a statement about the world: that censorship can cause companies to go out of business. Your justification of this fact is baseless claims. In the real world, I posit this never happens.
Are there people really this ignorant that don't understand the whole point of the Constitution is to limit *government* power to oppress speech?
The whole point of the first amendment is to limit the federal government's power to censor speech. The whole point of the fourteen amendment is to limit the individual state's powers to that of the federal government's. I fail to understand why there shouldn't be rights that protect free speech in companies. Whistleblower laws due this to some degree. We recognize that companies cannot have racist or sexist employment standards.
If I wanted to say unpopular things, it would be easier to survive antipathy from my state than Google. After all, I can leave my state, but I cannot convince people not to use google.
Well, the Declaration is not legally relevent. That "rights from the creator" may be morally or technically true, but has no legal truth.
I find your point of view interesting, but you should rephrase it would referencing the Declaration. More like "The government has no legal right to do X, can they create an independent organization to do X?". I don't recall the answer, but I believe there is caselaw about that.
And have GoDaddy randomly take down your site (RTFA)? Oh, you don't have to use GoDaddy, but you're still reliant on someone's server. I suppose, if you have access to a high-speed connection that allows you to host a server, and can afford it, you could host it locally, but that is a huge number of people you just removed free speech online from.
Libertarians seem to forget or blithly ignore that the government is not the only means of restricting your rights. For the vast majority of US history, corporations have been bigger threats to individual rights.
Disclaimers: I am spanish, spanish is my first language, and I live in Luxembourg, working for the EU. I also speak English, French and some German, which are far more useful here.
Since you are not a native English speaker, I feel I should explain to you what "Disclaimers" means. It is not a word that is followed by a series of pertinent facts. Instead, it is commonly used to offset a list of facts that make your previous statement untrue or inapplicable. Instead, you wanted to provide evidence of your authority to make meaningful statements about Spanish, Spain, and the EU.
The time spent is pretty small in the end. And that time really doesn't come out of your computer studies. It's such a different activity that it's the kind of thing that can help recharge your brain from all that math and programming. The benefits are well worth it.
That's what I tell humanities majors about higher level math classes. Just because you find it easy does not mean everyone does. I struggled something horrible with a foreign language, and retained none of it.
The only French I know is "Hello, do you speak English?" And I only know "Bonjour" for hello, which I'm fairly sure is appropriate only in the morning.
Why you would choose to claim that an American saying they only know English, and trying to decide if they should learn another language, as evidence that all Americans assume everyone knows English, I don't understand.
Of course French schools require you to know English to learn Engineering. British schools used to require German, and before that everyone had to learn Latin, etc. etc. It may not be fair, but there usually is one major language for science/math/technology. Now it is English. There's a bit of momentum, so I'd imagine it will stay like that for a while too. Also, consider the relative sizes of America and Europe. Americans can travel distances that, in Europe, would require crossing a seven international boundaries, and using eight languages. Of course Europeans are going to emphasize foreign languages more.
Slashdot Mirror
Your justification of this fact is baseless claims. In the real world, I posit this never happens.
Citation needed.
No, it's not. Citation for why it's not.
A citation is needed though for the assertion that companies that practice censorship go out of business. There is a theoretical framework, but I question if it has ever really happened. Please justify your theory with evidence.
It's not unique; it's just not shared by BSD
Correct. Societies need to come together to accomplish some goals. Taxes are one way people come together ( conscription is another) to share burdens. Because people lie and to avoid free-rider problems, we cannot allow people to opt out of given programs. The act of shouldering a burden for society is called a beneficent act.
Corporations cannot imprision you. The earlier point was that governments can imprision you while corporations cannot. Why the government imprisions you getermines if is a violation of your rights. Is it because of your race or your speech -- or is it because you killed you wife?
I've never heard that meme; I've commonly heard the opposite.
I take a positive view of rights. Not only should society not infringe on your right to free speech, it should help enable you communicate. It should give you tools such as an education so that you can communicate.
For that matter, if people have an individual rights to guns (notice the "if" if you disagree with that right) the government should take reasonable steps to encourage you to be able to purchase them.
There is a line of course, such as cost. The government shouldn't provide everyone a TV station. But there is some effort that is reasonable.
I'd agree. I'd argue that is why it wasn't reasonable for the government to provide a positive right back then, but it is reasonable now. It's merely a matter of legally curtailing corporate censorship.
Net neutrality seems hard? You legally make it so. Technically, it's just a matter of not doing what they are currently not doing.
That's a false dichotomy. No one is advocating the latter. I am advocating the government enforce fairness on he corporations.
I'd rather my right to free speech be backed up by the force of law and the US Constitution, then by how big a bat I can swing. Personally, I own 0% of the backbone connetions, or any wire outside my house. I own a couple of domains, and one connection that I cannot host on. I cannot afford more than that, personall. I doubt you can afford much more than that. What happens when your local ISP doesn't like your site. Or your customer's ISP doesn't like it? Or anyone in between doesn't like it.
He knows that the internet has many sites. But he also knows that network effects mean that only a few are important within any community are important. They are important. I have 2 ISPs I can choose from. I have to go over ATamp;T's backbone to get to many sites. I have to find sites on a search engine.
Did you read that link? The wikipage has a string of warnings at the top that iit needs citations, cleanup, etc. It's also an eCommerce site that went out of business when the bubble burst; it doesn't relate to censorship at all.
Mussolini was removed from office as a result of losing WWII for Italy, andexecuted by the communists. There was no uprising because of censorship.
In clean room design, the people creating the new work have never been exposed to the previous work. When writing tab, they have been. A song can be copyrighted as lyrics and notes, in addition to each derivative recording being copyrighted.
Monsanto did make Agent Orange more efficently then the government could. It sold it to the US government during the Vietnam War. The GP was just making the point that they unleashed a horror on the world.
Would there be police forces, or is a free market an anarchy? If it is an anarchy, what prevents a large gang from taking over as an autocratic government?
Then explain why racism, sexism, etc. have decreased as a result of the US moving away from a free market.
Same question as above, but with "monopolies" instead of "racism, sexism, etc."
Please reread it. It says a) Certain things belong to the people as individual rights; b) The federal government has some enumerated powers, which cannot be used to infringe on people's rights; c) Everything else belongs to the states.
The current system is pretty stable, and pretty cruel. I tend to tack to the other side. Since corporations are able to inflict harms because of their concentration of wealth (and the power it brings) I favor redistributing (to some degree) that wealth. Whether that is redistribution as checks to citizens, or via government programs, I'm not sure of yet.
Are you advocating bartering? Becuase that seems to impose huge costs on each transaction. Otherwise, you need offical currency. Why IP law would not be part of a free market, but physical property law is, I'll never understand.
No. All complaints about corporations go away when you start removing property rights, as that is from whence their power is derived. Without a government monopoly on currency, corporations wouldn't be able to force people to get RFID chips, or take drug tests, or not keep private blogs. But communism, while it would solve that issue, has other negative effects. So maybe we start by limiting the harms corporations can do, and work from there?
You could RTFA and see a couterexample.
I don't find anything you just said to be a violation of individual rights, depending on why people are jailed. Wars happen. Conscription and taxes are considered beneficent acts that can be forced on people, even by JSM.
Nope, just as there are times when sex/creed discrimination is legal. The employer has a right to be concerned with job performance.
Actually, the Supreme Court would probably rule it was obscene and not subject ot free speech protection.
No, it doesn't. It talks about censorship by Flickr, webhosting companies and ISPs. RTFA before you complain about it.
Most slashdot users that use windows seem to avoid IE for stability/security reasons. And IE still is the dominant browser in the world. And websites still have to conform to the IE way of rendering things, possibly in addition to the Firefox/Safari/Opera way. So I claim it is a counterexample of what you are looking for.
Because you are making a statement about the world: that censorship can cause companies to go out of business. Your justification of this fact is baseless claims. In the real world, I posit this never happens.
The whole point of the first amendment is to limit the federal government's power to censor speech. The whole point of the fourteen amendment is to limit the individual state's powers to that of the federal government's. I fail to understand why there shouldn't be rights that protect free speech in companies. Whistleblower laws due this to some degree. We recognize that companies cannot have racist or sexist employment standards.
If I wanted to say unpopular things, it would be easier to survive antipathy from my state than Google. After all, I can leave my state, but I cannot convince people not to use google.
Well, the Declaration is not legally relevent. That "rights from the creator" may be morally or technically true, but has no legal truth.
I find your point of view interesting, but you should rephrase it would referencing the Declaration. More like "The government has no legal right to do X, can they create an independent organization to do X?". I don't recall the answer, but I believe there is caselaw about that.
Citation needed. When has that ever happened.
And have GoDaddy randomly take down your site (RTFA)? Oh, you don't have to use GoDaddy, but you're still reliant on someone's server. I suppose, if you have access to a high-speed connection that allows you to host a server, and can afford it, you could host it locally, but that is a huge number of people you just removed free speech online from.
Libertarians seem to forget or blithly ignore that the government is not the only means of restricting your rights. For the vast majority of US history, corporations have been bigger threats to individual rights.
Since you are not a native English speaker, I feel I should explain to you what "Disclaimers" means. It is not a word that is followed by a series of pertinent facts. Instead, it is commonly used to offset a list of facts that make your previous statement untrue or inapplicable. Instead, you wanted to provide evidence of your authority to make meaningful statements about Spanish, Spain, and the EU.
That's what I tell humanities majors about higher level math classes. Just because you find it easy does not mean everyone does. I struggled something horrible with a foreign language, and retained none of it.
The only French I know is "Hello, do you speak English?" And I only know "Bonjour" for hello, which I'm fairly sure is appropriate only in the morning.
Why you would choose to claim that an American saying they only know English, and trying to decide if they should learn another language, as evidence that all Americans assume everyone knows English, I don't understand.
Of course French schools require you to know English to learn Engineering. British schools used to require German, and before that everyone had to learn Latin, etc. etc. It may not be fair, but there usually is one major language for science/math/technology. Now it is English. There's a bit of momentum, so I'd imagine it will stay like that for a while too. Also, consider the relative sizes of America and Europe. Americans can travel distances that, in Europe, would require crossing a seven international boundaries, and using eight languages. Of course Europeans are going to emphasize foreign languages more.