My argument is: Federal courts have already ruled on this in my favor. There has been no evidence of it anywhere in the last two decades. Even if there were, I'd still prefer free speech to bullshit, arbitrary rules set in place by people who think they know better. It's very evocative of "we need more laws because we don't enforce the ones on the books."
Free speech has never led to more democracy? No this is nothing like Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. There is no hyperinflation. We're not coming off the world's largest war to date after decades of ethnic and nationalist conflict brewing. We have no neighbors than can impose their will on us militarily.
Please take your clutched pearls and march them elsewhere. This is such an obtuse comparison, socially, mentally, emotionally, economically, militarily, historically and damn near any other adverb I can think of.
Not even close, there are certain circumstances when you can argue that photos can by covered by free speech but not the other way around, they are not equivalent or even close to being the same thing.
Yes very close. Nearly all photos are free speech. Seriously, go read anything on the first amendment. It's why you can film cops. It's why people can show pictures of aborted babies while protesting. It's why taking ballot selfies has been affirmed by federal courts 3 times. Unless it falls under a very specific set of exceptions like obscenity (your child porn example), libel, treason, and a few others. Thus the vast majority of pictures do in fact constitute free speech, which is a giant "durr" to anyone who gave it more than 2 seconds of thought or had passed US Government in HS.
If you really want to point at Apples to Oranges regarding Europe as a continent vs US as a country, let gloss over that I can generalize with "Europe" because not a single country on that continent has free speech protections as strong as the US' protections.
Well done, you just modified your argument because you realized how stupid you statement was. However, just because you are backpedaling it does not mean that I have to adjust my argument to mat ch yours, get back on subject buckaroo. (I can "draw the dots" for you back to what was said if you like/cant remember)
You can draw the dots but I saved myself a few seconds by typing "Europe" instead of "Every country in Europe." If you think that's worthy of rebuke, well I can't change your admittedly feeble mind. In the meantime, feel free to read about photography and the 1st amendment. You might actually learn something.
Please prove to where that's gone on in modern America. I'll eagerly await your response. If it is easy to scare people into voting publicly, why hasn't it happened yet. Which regional superpower is going to invade us if we don't vote the way they want us to?
Your comparison is bizarre, inaccurate, and completely out of line with anything regarding reality. People are free to vote in secrecy. There is nothing to stop that. Existing laws punish what you purport is a huge problem. However your "concern" for people's secrecy reeks of paternalism and nanny state. Go read the Indiana, NH, and Michigan court decisions where these laws were blocked. Any of these concerns were so woefully "underproven" (more like unprovable due to no evidence) that they were dismissed out of hand.
Now you won't do this and why it's wildly impractical to affect anything but a tiny local election, so I'm wasting my time and effort. Half the states don't have these laws. Every time they've been challenged they've fallen. Yet somehow there is no widespread corruption or conspiracy that has swayed national elections. I hope you believe that Voter IDs are necessary too. At least you would be mentally consistent then, albeit wrong.
The potential for abuse has been dismissed by 3 federal courts and has never held up to even intermediate scrutiny. It just doesn't happen the way you think it can.
Photos and free speech go hand in hand. You're clearly too fucking stupid to read what I linked to. Cases on this have already been decided. They were unconstitutional based on 1st amendment protections. Yes photos of naked children are not protected. Political speech, aka ballot selfies, are.
"If First Amendment protections are to enjoy enduring relevance in the 21st century, they must apply with full force to speech conducted online and through social media platforms, especially where this speech is political in nature."
"On August 11, 2015, a federal judge struck down the law, ruling that the law “deprives voters of one of their most powerful means of letting the world know how they voted.” For example, this form of speech can convey a sense of pride and excitement from an 18-year-old, newly minted voter who is enthusiastic about voting in her first presidential selection. It can convey, as it did with Andrew, the message of political protest against one’s choices for public office. The court understood that these messages lose their salience without the photograph of the marked ballot."
It appears "retarded" to me because it is and because I do understand what I read. If you really want to point at Apples to Oranges regarding Europe as a continent vs US as a country, let gloss over that I can generalize with "Europe" because not a single country on that continent has free speech protections as strong as the US' protections. Go back to your troll cave. Nothing you said even remotely resembles anything but subpar intelligence. You're in the wrong decile of the bell curve my friend.
They ban a protected first amendment activity. There is no compelling state interest, as no evidence of this being abused has popped up anywhere in any state.
The only downside is that NY is outside the 1st Circuit so this farce will actually take a little while to play out instead of an immediate injunction being granted.
Only to a fucking retard. These laws are overturned on 1st Amendment grounds. If you can't connect the dots, turn off the computer and tell your parents you need to go to bed. There is even precedent!
FTS: Employees complained that Facebook was changing the rules for Trump and some who review content on Facebook threatened to quit.
Well, bye. Yes Trump is terrible and his viewpoints are awful. He's awful the GOP candidate for President. By squelching his speech content, you're both tacitly endorsing a specific party as a platform -- a big no no from Zuckerberg -- and stripping people of newsworthy information, be it for good or bad. Needless to say it does not surprise me they threatened to quit. If I were Zuckerberg, they'd have been gone anyway. They were moderating content on Facebook, a job not relegated to rocket scientists, and failed at it.
Not sure why remembering someone is relevant on their fifth death anniversary. Now if he were remembered in like 200 years, that would be something. Hey modmins, try using well fitting English words next time you write a headline. It won't happen though. You could even have borrowed it from the MacRumors summary!
I have an iPhone 5, not a Samsung. In any case I'm not sure how that posts makes me a fanboy. If you're not calling me one, then it's just a nonsensical response.
I like being able to charge my phone AND listen to music. It's not a niche use. Millions of people do it every day. I don't want wireless headphones. At least nail down wireless charging before you jam every possible output/input through one port.
It seems self-evident that the most effective weight loss will be from people who have found the will to do so within themselves, but the point of a tracker is to *give* some additional incentive to someone who would otherwise not have done the work at all, or may have stopped substantially sooner, lacking an unambiguous, objective, and quantitative measurement of how much work they have actually done.
For truly fair comparison, one should evaluate how much weight people with a weight-loss tracker lose compared to the average person who may not even exercise at all.
That's a pretty fucking stupid sentence to write. How is that a fair comparison? People trying to lose weight vs not? Let's take a measure of people trying to stay alive vs people trying to kill themselves. That's about as useful of a measurement. Dead people lose weight much faster than live people. Go to bed. Sober up. Stop posting for a while maybe?
You think the stewardesses are going to go person by person checking their phone? I don't know the percentage of Android to iPhone ownership in Australia, but that would add a lot of time and hassle. I doubt it would get enforced anywhere, despite it being a legitimate safety issue, if only for the person holding it.
No bribes. CPD is just awful at their jobs. Well I guess you could make an argument for malicious incompetence with respect to their clean manipulation of crime statistics, but they are probably not corrupt.
"The areas that received additional attention experienced a 20% reduction in calls to the police. The study concluded that cleaning up the physical environment was more effective than misdemeanor arrests and that increasing social services had no effect"
Get your racist, bullshit trash theories out of here and maybe join the 21st century. That retarded idea was old and busted twenty years ago
Slashdot Mirror
Ballots are still fucking secret if you want them to be. JFC people
My argument is: Federal courts have already ruled on this in my favor. There has been no evidence of it anywhere in the last two decades. Even if there were, I'd still prefer free speech to bullshit, arbitrary rules set in place by people who think they know better. It's very evocative of "we need more laws because we don't enforce the ones on the books."
Free speech has never led to more democracy? No this is nothing like Europe in the 1920s and 1930s. There is no hyperinflation. We're not coming off the world's largest war to date after decades of ethnic and nationalist conflict brewing. We have no neighbors than can impose their will on us militarily.
Please take your clutched pearls and march them elsewhere. This is such an obtuse comparison, socially, mentally, emotionally, economically, militarily, historically and damn near any other adverb I can think of.
I was posting from my phone: "Yes photos of naked children are not protected. Political speech, aka ballot selfies, are."
How does this override free speech? Totally different than SuperPAC.
Photos and free speech go hand in hand.
Not even close, there are certain circumstances when you can argue that photos can by covered by free speech but not the other way around, they are not equivalent or even close to being the same thing.
Yes very close. Nearly all photos are free speech. Seriously, go read anything on the first amendment. It's why you can film cops. It's why people can show pictures of aborted babies while protesting. It's why taking ballot selfies has been affirmed by federal courts 3 times. Unless it falls under a very specific set of exceptions like obscenity (your child porn example), libel, treason, and a few others. Thus the vast majority of pictures do in fact constitute free speech, which is a giant "durr" to anyone who gave it more than 2 seconds of thought or had passed US Government in HS.
If you really want to point at Apples to Oranges regarding Europe as a continent vs US as a country, let gloss over that I can generalize with "Europe" because not a single country on that continent has free speech protections as strong as the US' protections.
Well done, you just modified your argument because you realized how stupid you statement was. However, just because you are backpedaling it does not mean that I have to adjust my argument to mat ch yours, get back on subject buckaroo. (I can "draw the dots" for you back to what was said if you like/cant remember)
You can draw the dots but I saved myself a few seconds by typing "Europe" instead of "Every country in Europe." If you think that's worthy of rebuke, well I can't change your admittedly feeble mind. In the meantime, feel free to read about photography and the 1st amendment. You might actually learn something.
http://www.firstamendmentcente...
Please prove to where that's gone on in modern America. I'll eagerly await your response. If it is easy to scare people into voting publicly, why hasn't it happened yet. Which regional superpower is going to invade us if we don't vote the way they want us to?
Your comparison is bizarre, inaccurate, and completely out of line with anything regarding reality. People are free to vote in secrecy. There is nothing to stop that. Existing laws punish what you purport is a huge problem. However your "concern" for people's secrecy reeks of paternalism and nanny state. Go read the Indiana, NH, and Michigan court decisions where these laws were blocked. Any of these concerns were so woefully "underproven" (more like unprovable due to no evidence) that they were dismissed out of hand.
Now you won't do this and why it's wildly impractical to affect anything but a tiny local election, so I'm wasting my time and effort. Half the states don't have these laws. Every time they've been challenged they've fallen. Yet somehow there is no widespread corruption or conspiracy that has swayed national elections. I hope you believe that Voter IDs are necessary too. At least you would be mentally consistent then, albeit wrong.
The potential for abuse has been dismissed by 3 federal courts and has never held up to even intermediate scrutiny. It just doesn't happen the way you think it can.
Photos and free speech go hand in hand. You're clearly too fucking stupid to read what I linked to. Cases on this have already been decided. They were unconstitutional based on 1st amendment protections. Yes photos of naked children are not protected. Political speech, aka ballot selfies, are.
"If First Amendment protections are to enjoy enduring relevance in the 21st century, they must apply with full force to speech conducted online and through social media platforms, especially where this speech is political in nature."
"On August 11, 2015, a federal judge struck down the law, ruling that the law “deprives voters of one of their most powerful means of letting the world know how they voted.” For example, this form of speech can convey a sense of pride and excitement from an 18-year-old, newly minted voter who is enthusiastic about voting in her first presidential selection. It can convey, as it did with Andrew, the message of political protest against one’s choices for public office. The court understood that these messages lose their salience without the photograph of the marked ballot."
It appears "retarded" to me because it is and because I do understand what I read. If you really want to point at Apples to Oranges regarding Europe as a continent vs US as a country, let gloss over that I can generalize with "Europe" because not a single country on that continent has free speech protections as strong as the US' protections. Go back to your troll cave. Nothing you said even remotely resembles anything but subpar intelligence. You're in the wrong decile of the bell curve my friend.
They ban a protected first amendment activity. There is no compelling state interest, as no evidence of this being abused has popped up anywhere in any state.
The only downside is that NY is outside the 1st Circuit so this farce will actually take a little while to play out instead of an immediate injunction being granted.
https://www.aclu.org/blog/spea...
Only to a fucking retard. These laws are overturned on 1st Amendment grounds. If you can't connect the dots, turn off the computer and tell your parents you need to go to bed. There is even precedent!
https://www.aclu.org/blog/spea...
Europe's concept of free speech is far more limited than the US version, so no1curr
Nice job Anon coward. You almost, nearly gave a kind-of-accurate, coherent, useful response.
Your talents might be more useful in the real of horse shoes or hand grenades.
FTS: Employees complained that Facebook was changing the rules for Trump and some who review content on Facebook threatened to quit.
Well, bye. Yes Trump is terrible and his viewpoints are awful. He's awful the GOP candidate for President. By squelching his speech content, you're both tacitly endorsing a specific party as a platform -- a big no no from Zuckerberg -- and stripping people of newsworthy information, be it for good or bad. Needless to say it does not surprise me they threatened to quit. If I were Zuckerberg, they'd have been gone anyway. They were moderating content on Facebook, a job not relegated to rocket scientists, and failed at it.
Good work ladies and gentlemen.
Not sure why remembering someone is relevant on their fifth death anniversary. Now if he were remembered in like 200 years, that would be something. Hey modmins, try using well fitting English words next time you write a headline. It won't happen though. You could even have borrowed it from the MacRumors summary!
I have an iPhone 5, not a Samsung. In any case I'm not sure how that posts makes me a fanboy. If you're not calling me one, then it's just a nonsensical response.
I like being able to charge my phone AND listen to music. It's not a niche use. Millions of people do it every day. I don't want wireless headphones. At least nail down wireless charging before you jam every possible output/input through one port.
It seems self-evident that the most effective weight loss will be from people who have found the will to do so within themselves, but the point of a tracker is to *give* some additional incentive to someone who would otherwise not have done the work at all, or may have stopped substantially sooner, lacking an unambiguous, objective, and quantitative measurement of how much work they have actually done.
For truly fair comparison, one should evaluate how much weight people with a weight-loss tracker lose compared to the average person who may not even exercise at all.
That's a pretty fucking stupid sentence to write. How is that a fair comparison? People trying to lose weight vs not? Let's take a measure of people trying to stay alive vs people trying to kill themselves. That's about as useful of a measurement. Dead people lose weight much faster than live people. Go to bed. Sober up. Stop posting for a while maybe?
https://cdn.meme.am/instances/...
Well done China. Well done.
If I had mod points, which I usually do, I would figure out how to hack Slashdot and mod you up to 10 or so. This is bordering on Bennett content.
You think the stewardesses are going to go person by person checking their phone? I don't know the percentage of Android to iPhone ownership in Australia, but that would add a lot of time and hassle. I doubt it would get enforced anywhere, despite it being a legitimate safety issue, if only for the person holding it.
The upside is that we haven't seen Bennett in months!
No bribes. CPD is just awful at their jobs. Well I guess you could make an argument for malicious incompetence with respect to their clean manipulation of crime statistics, but they are probably not corrupt.
"The areas that received additional attention experienced a 20% reduction in calls to the police. The study concluded that cleaning up the physical environment was more effective than misdemeanor arrests and that increasing social services had no effect"
Get your racist, bullshit trash theories out of here and maybe join the 21st century. That retarded idea was old and busted twenty years ago
WTF are you ranting about?