Bots, on their own, are not sentient nor are they persons in either the natural or corporate sense, so no they do not have free speech rights.
The people OPERATING them, however, are, and thus presumably THEY have free speech rights, which the bots are simply exercising on their behalf.
In essence, the bots are acting as autonomous agents of their operators who exercise whatever legal rights there may be on the part of the principle.
Though as is probably well known on slashdot, free speech does not apply in private communication channels, regardless of if the speaker is human or not.
Private venues are free to ban bots, or indeed normal people, for any reason they see fit, because as owners of private property they possess personal sovereignty over their own sites, and that includes the prerogative to ban or censor anyone at any time by whim alone.
It is only governments who are restrained by constitutional rights.
Also, free speech is not a blank check to break other laws regarding fraud and the like if someone using a bot is deliberately concealing their identity in an attempt to deceive in an official capacity.
If it is profitable to violate network neutrality, then the free market will encourage it.
Trolls can get rich if they extract tolls on busy bridges. Especially if they can charge more from the heavier carriages that travel across.
Bottom line is, if the telcos have something to gain by holding traffic hostage for ransom in the form of bribes^Wfees for priority, they'll charge for it.
If people using that network have something to lose if they don't play ball, they'll pay up.
I mean surely there are games out there that Nintendo doesn't have copyright for. Why should they get the chance to reverse engineer someone else's IP?
What would the likes of Namco, Accolade, Sega, and so on have to say about this?
Anyone wanna bet that this was done deliberately to make them easier to hack? Whoever made these things should know damn well how to keep it secure. Especially with the shenanigans around Diebold and so on. Election fraud is big news with the people who make the damned machines so there's no way they are doing this out of ignorance. These rules seem specifically designed with the OPPOSITE of security in mind.
You know, you can have one orange finger and you'll get the benefit of the doubt. Two orange fingers and you'll still get the innocent until proven guilty treatment. But when your whole hand is orange and there's cheese powder on your lips and teeth? Dude, I didn't have to see you do it to know that you stole the fucking cheetos!
Getting the debate on net neutrality derailed with a quasi-terrorist attack may have gotten the debate shitcanned and filed into the "we'll go ahead with it because we obviously have bigger fish to fry and more important things to worry about"
I wonder if he's part of the reason that the FCC decided to steam ahead with net neutrality repeal.
Slashdot Mirror
Bots, on their own, are not sentient nor are they persons in either the natural or corporate sense, so no they do not have free speech rights.
The people OPERATING them, however, are, and thus presumably THEY have free speech rights, which the bots are simply exercising on their behalf.
In essence, the bots are acting as autonomous agents of their operators who exercise whatever legal rights there may be on the part of the principle.
Though as is probably well known on slashdot, free speech does not apply in private communication channels, regardless of if the speaker is human or not.
Private venues are free to ban bots, or indeed normal people, for any reason they see fit, because as owners of private property they possess personal sovereignty over their own sites, and that includes the prerogative to ban or censor anyone at any time by whim alone.
It is only governments who are restrained by constitutional rights.
Also, free speech is not a blank check to break other laws regarding fraud and the like if someone using a bot is deliberately concealing their identity in an attempt to deceive in an official capacity.
Like TDS did against Monticello?
Can anyone besides me laugh at the sheer irony of this?
China's busy ripping us off, and they're getting scammed.
If it is profitable to violate network neutrality, then the free market will encourage it.
Trolls can get rich if they extract tolls on busy bridges. Especially if they can charge more from the heavier carriages that travel across.
Bottom line is, if the telcos have something to gain by holding traffic hostage for ransom in the form of bribes^Wfees for priority, they'll charge for it.
If people using that network have something to lose if they don't play ball, they'll pay up.
http://nelson-haha.api-meal.eu...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
They could always make it opt in... ...come to think of it they probably WOULD make it opt-in if they could charge for it as a premium feature.
Just use standard methods.
All we really need to do is ban caller ID spoofing.
...why Nintendo gets ALL the roms?
I mean surely there are games out there that Nintendo doesn't have copyright for. Why should they get the chance to reverse engineer someone else's IP?
What would the likes of Namco, Accolade, Sega, and so on have to say about this?
It is bullshit, but they don't have to use trademark or copyright law to stop it.
Amazon is a private business and has the right to do what it darn pleases within the bounds of the law.
No, Apple can't make Amazon stop selling refurbished macs. They can, however, ask, and Amazon can say yes.
China?
Boost intellectual property protection?
*inhales deeply*
BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
I think the situation is complex enough as it is.
Anyone wanna bet that this was done deliberately to make them easier to hack? Whoever made these things should know damn well how to keep it secure. Especially with the shenanigans around Diebold and so on. Election fraud is big news with the people who make the damned machines so there's no way they are doing this out of ignorance. These rules seem specifically designed with the OPPOSITE of security in mind.
You know, you can have one orange finger and you'll get the benefit of the doubt. Two orange fingers and you'll still get the innocent until proven guilty treatment. But when your whole hand is orange and there's cheese powder on your lips and teeth? Dude, I didn't have to see you do it to know that you stole the fucking cheetos!
Epic Fail?
Nelson Muntz says his regards.
Seriously, the irony...
Secure boot
You know, there is such a thing as a "red team" in these sorts of things. Why not allow that in a game if you have it at work?
Are they calling the satellite Mulan?
The dark side of the moooooon!
Now taking bets on how many cthulu references will be made on this article.
If he causes enough of a headache Ecuador could always just revoke his asylum and shitcan him out the front door.
Obstructing a 911 call smells very risky from a legal standpoint.
The FCC being involved makes it a potential case of federal jurisdiction.
So for me the biggest question is WHERE is he going to spend that time, in state prison or federal prison?
More like the guy caused collateral damage.
Getting the debate on net neutrality derailed with a quasi-terrorist attack may have gotten the debate shitcanned and filed into the "we'll go ahead with it because we obviously have bigger fish to fry and more important things to worry about"
I wonder if he's part of the reason that the FCC decided to steam ahead with net neutrality repeal.
Worse. Stuff that had *already entered the public domain* was RETROACTIVELY CLAWED BACK!