If you prioritize packets based on location, how does that help the bandwidth issue? If you have a T-1 (1.54Mb/s) and another server on your high priority list has a T-3 (45Mb/s), your T-1 will still be flooded from a download to that high priority site.
The only way I see is to limit the bandwidth available to people based upon their usage of it.
It shouldn't be too hard to keep a daily count of bits downloaded/uploaded.
If they start losing bandwidth in the middle of a download, so what? That just means that their download will take longer. If it is in the middle of a game, then that's the way it is. If they don't like it, they can go to a different ISP. But if you don't throttle the bandwidth, they will ALWAYS have a sucky connection for their game. This way, after a few days of playing, you'll know what bandwidth to expect.
Sure, everyone would love to get massive bandwidth for $10 a month.
The question is, are you (the ISP) being charged by the GB used or a flat rate per Mb/s?
If it is by the GB, then this cost is easily passed on to the customer. In fact, that cost SHOULD be in the customer's contract.
If it is a flat rate, then can you throttle their bandwidth as their usage climbs? Just break the bandwidth down into 5 or 10 segments.
1 = people who download/upload less than 1 MB per month. These people get 1 Mb/s to themselves and they should NEVER see any delays because they aren't moving that much to begin with.
2 = over 1 MB but less than 5 MB. These people get 1 Mb/s to themselves. The might see more slowdowns than group 1, but not much.
And so on and so forth until you get to group #10 and they are downloading/uploading 50GB or whatever a month. These people get 1 Mb/s and they have to share it with all the other hogs.
Now, when the lower groups are not utilizing their bandwidth (late at night?), the higher groups can share that. But when someone in a lower group comes on, they get the bandwidth allocated to them.
Sure, the numbers would have to be worked out a bit, but the logic sounds good.
You provide service for the largest portion of your customers while allowing the higher bandwidth hogs to use the leftovers when they are available.
New customers get put in the lowest group and, as their usage grows, they move up the groups.
You will notice that the State of NY did something and the ACLU is protesting it saying that it is unconstitutional.
Now, refer back to my points that not EVERYTHING is broken down to Rights and Crimes.
Then, refer back to where I pointed out that laws can be passed that may be unconstitutional, and those laws are challenged in court to determine their constitutionality. (Not, as you maintain, Rights are restricted as new laws are made.)
So, what you are refering to seems to be this EXACT PROCESS.
!!!SMACKDOWN!!!
"Please do this. I shudder at the thought of an America where this sad belief of yours is prevalent."
"The USSC can't just declare off-hand that something doesn't fit within the constitution."
It wasn't done "off-hand". Read the citation.
"No, you didn't show me the decision, you told me the result of the decision."
Yes I did. The decision was that child pornography does not fall under the 1st Amendment.
You are wrong AGAIN!
"As I said, US laws don't affect me, but the right of free speech enchrined in the first amendment is drawn from English common law, and Australian law also acknowledges the right of free speech."
Yep, and electricity can produce light and candles can produce light, but because you might know something about candles does NOT mean that you know anything about electricity.
"So I know about free speech, and I know it is intended to cover more than simply truth."
Nice try. You might know SOMETHING about free speech in England and Canada and Australia, but that does not mean you know ANYTHING about free speech in the USofA.
"After all, how can free speech allow flat earthers, creationists and scientists all to have the same rights to publish their viewpoints?"
Because it is NOT a binary system. I've been over that before.
"How can the legal system determine "truth" in philosophy?"
Why should it? Truth in legal terms is all it is concerned about.
"Yet all these things are covered by the right of free speech."
No they are not. You keep thinking in your binary "logic" mode.
"Why is the defining statement of free speech "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?"
Strange, but I do NOT see that statement in any of the US laws. Maybe you can cite it? After all, if it is not part of the US law, how can it be the defining statement of US law?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
"The USSC decalred that child pornography does not fall under the 1st amendment. And what was their reasoning for that?"
That doesn't matter. The USSC has THE final say on what is legal and Constitutional.
YOUR point was that child pornography was censored, but that censorship did not fit my position on the first amendment.
"When I say "I don't need to know", it's because I'm not a US citizen, so US laws aren't relevant in my life."
Yet you will go on and on and on and on about how I, a US citizen who has been educated in US law am wrong and you, someone who has not been so educated, is right.
Despite my showing you the decision by the USSC.
!!!SMACKDOWN!!!
"You still haven't answered my question. Does freee speech cover fiction? Well?"
Yes I did. Over and over and over.
Free speech ONLY covers the truth.
Do you believe fiction is truth?
"You can blather on all you want, thinking you have found the answer, but it's not that simple."
Actually, it is. The USSC reviewed the case and made their judgement. Therefore, it is US law.
"The right of free speech does cover everything that is not specifically banned."
Keep saying that. "When I say "I don't need to know", it's because I'm not a US citizen, so US laws aren't relevant in my life." Yet you keep saying that you know it better than I do.
"Free speech is not limited to truth."
Keep saying that. "When I say "I don't need to know", it's because I'm not a US citizen, so US laws aren't relevant in my life." Yet you keep saying that you know it better than I do.
"it's far more complex, which is why attempts to restrict speech end up in the supreme court."
You've been shown to be wrong on pornography (maybe in the country YOU live in, it is censored).
You've been shown to be wrong on perjury.
You've been shown to be wrong on fraud.
You've been shown to be wrong on libel.
You've been shown to be wrong on slander.
You've even been shown to be wrong on child pornography.
Well, that certainly bolsters your chance of being right on the subject of the first amendment, doesn't it?
"I don't know what argument the US government uses to override/limit Amendment I." -and- "Whatever, it isn't relevant; I don't know, and I don't need to know."
You don't know and you don't need to know, but you know that it is more complex than I have stated.
I said I could pick up pornography at the corner 7-11.
"Making statements doesn't prove a point."
No, but presenting FACTS does. Such as the FACT that you were WRONG about pornography being censored.
"Go look at censorship debates over fiction. They are about harm, not truth, obviously, since fiction is by definition untrue."
What censorship debates? Hmmmm? Go ahead. Substantiate your position. I have YET to see any non-fiction worked censored. I have seen debates about carrying it in a school library. But never about censoring one.
"Some pornography is censored, eg Child pornography. How is that censorship related to truth?"
That was covered in New York v. Ferber before the United States Supreme Court.
The USSC declared that child pornography does NOT fall under the 1st amendment.
I believe I have just delivered a "smackdown" on your position.
Or do you feel up to arguing against the USSC?
heh heh heh
Don't feel bad. You made a mistake of relying upon your ignorance and inherent stupidity when you were facing an opponent with an IQ that's more than triple your's.
To quote you back at yourself: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=911 55&threshol d=1&commentsort=0&tid=133&mode=thread&pid=7888133# 7889597
"I don't know what argument the US government uses to override/limit Amendment I." -and- "Whatever, it isn't relevant; I don't know, and I don't need to know."
So, you can say untrue things as long as you don't cause harm.
But you can cause harm as long as what you say is true.
So the harm is NOT the distinguishing factor.
The distinguishing factor is whether it is true or not.
"In the case of free speech, it actually is a binary situation, since the right of free speech covers all expression that is not outlawed. (And occasionally, some that is, in the case of laws that are found unconstitutional)."
Look at that.
"Covers all expression that is not outlawed."
How can it be outlawed if it is a Right?
Laws can be ruled "unconstitutional".
Rights cannot be ruled "illegal".
"I don't see anything in there which limits free speech to truth, do you?"
No, I don't. Neither do I see anything about slander or libel or perjury or fraud. Yet those most certainly are illegal.
Yet your quote from the Constitution would seem to say that laws against perjury and fraud are unconstitutional.
"In any case where free speech is constrained by government, it is done on the basis of harm, either to an individual or to "public morality"."
But the Constitution says that the government CANNOT abridge the freedom of speech.
But now you're saying that the government CAN and DOES abridge the freedom of speech.
So, does the Constitution say that the government can or cannot abridge the freedom of speech?
Your position is not consistent with your example.
#1. The Israeli thing seems more along the lines of a conspiracy fantasy.
#2. Genocide has very specific meanings. I see the "War on Drugs" as many things, but it is not genocide. I unfairly targets minorities and poor people and is used whenever a politician needs a quick boost in the polls and helps distract the average person from more pressing issues. But it is not genocide.
#3. "feminism"? So, now America is "ruined"? I hear that same kind of crap from Rush all the time. It isn't a heresy.
Now, let's look at REAL heresies.
a. Women should be allowed to vote. (Yep, this is close to #3, you'd have thunk that we'd be over this by now.) Go back far enough and you'd be laughed at for saying that. Come on. Everyone KNOWS that women are not emotionally or intellectually capable of understanding the political process. Heh heh heh. Suppose the election falls on her "time of the month". Even she wouldn't know who she would be voting for.
b. Slavery All men are created equal. As long as they're white, land-owning males. Jefferson even owned slaves. You were doing a GOOD thing. You were giving them a chance at real religion and civilization.
I just don't accept that it "discredits" anything.
But it does provide a good definition so I used the definition.
"On a more practical matter, though, are you even *from* the US? From what it sounds like, you've never read the Constitution and your username hints of foreign origin. If so, why should you care about US law and why should anyone else value your opinion of it?"
Seattle, Washington, USA Deal with it.
"Regardless, he would be derelict to ignore either the rights of the defendant or the lack of a victim, as you have."
So, if the people elected vote to pass a law, and the cops enforce that law and the judge finds that they were correct in doing so....
Well, they're just all wrong because YOU know what is "right".
In 99% of cases such as that, you would be considered delusional.
Check out the local psychiatric ward. They're filled with people who "know" what is "right" and "know" that everyone else is "wrong".
You think that everything that isn't a Right is illegal -or- That everything that isn't illegal is a Right.
That's not how the US system works. You have basic Rights and the various city, state, federal governments cannot pass laws that limit those rights.
But not EVERYTHING is illegal or a Right.
There are LOTS of activities that are not Rights that are also not illegal.
I can grow green beans at home, but I cannot grow marijuana. The Constitution does NOT have a list of things I can plant at home and things I cannot.
My Rights protect me from unconstitutional laws.
If I had a Right to say untrue things, then I could not be sued for libel or slander because it would be unconstitutional.
That is why the definitions (as posted by the other person) for libel and slander refer to untrue statements.
Again, everything is NOT split between Rights and Crimes.
I did not understand that you did not know that so my examples were difficult for you to understand.
So, someone saying "Jews are faggots" does NOT have the Right to say that because it is not true.
He can be subject to various legal actions (because he does not have that Right).
Which actions depend upon the exact circumstances.
I can go around saying that the moon is made of green cheese.
It's obviously untrue. I do NOT have a Right to say it. But it is NOT illegal in any way.
There, is THAT clear enough for you?
Now, when you start saying things about individuals or groups, then it becomes actionable. What actions depend upon the specifics.
Scenario #1. You read a book where someone said all Jews are faggots. You'd have to prove that you were somehow injured by that.
Scenario #2. Someone in Times Square starts talking loudly about how all Jews are faggots. The cops will ask him to shut up and if he refuses, he will be arrested.
Scenario #3. Someone is a home with his friend and he says that all Jews are faggots. Not much you can do there. In fact, you probably won't even be aware that it was even mentioned.
And so forth.
Because it is not a Right does NOT mean that it is a crime.
Because it is NOT a crime does not mean that it is a Right.
Back to the ORIGINAL story.
Public nudity is NOT a Right. Therefore, laws can be passed against it. As happened in that city. And she broke that law.
As for why you don't think a city in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is relevant to a discussion of LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, well, that's your problem then.
Ooooh, "speakers corner". Your link is Canadian. Why do you have trouble understanding that the US is not Canada?
"...and say "All Jews are faggots" *how* are you going to sue?"
You go to the "judge" and you "file" a "lawsuit".
Is that too complicated for you?
"*How*?"
Again, you go to the "judge" and you "file" a "lawsuit".
"I've heard people doing this before (the joys of "Voice of America's" more eclectic programming) and they don't go to jail."
Since you seem to have serious trouble differentiating between Canada and the US, I'm not going to accept your claims about what you have heard.
"If I can get away with that then libel/slander don't cover hate speech in the general sense, do they?"
Did you read the link to the Washington DC page? Why are you trying to claim that libel/slander covers all of "hate speech"? If you aren't claiming that, then what are you claiming?
"Just in the specific sense, such as me saying an untruth like "khasim is a faggot"."
Again, you can't tell the difference between Canada and the US and you don't see why me pointing out that the US has "Hate Crime" laws (with DC as an example) is applicable.
Now, if I was a faggot, would I have any legal recourse to what you just said?
No.
If I was not, then would I have legal recourse?
Yes.
Therefore, whether I have legal recourse depends upon whether what you say is true or not.
Which boils down to you can say anything TRUTHFUL and your Right to Freedom of Speech will protect you.
But you do NOT have a Right to say something UNTRUE.
You do not have the freedom to say anything you want.
If you say something and it harms someone and it is FALSE, then you can be sued for it and that person can claim damages.
If you say something and it harms someone and it is TRUE, then they will not win, even though harm has occured in both cases from you saying something.
Therefore, the difference is whether it is true or false.
Now, unless I can be sued for exercising my Constitutional rights (in which case, they are not rights at all), that means that I do not have a right to say things that aren't true.
Unless you do not understand what the word "right" means in this context?
Slashdot Mirror
Now I have Comcast (formerly AT&T) cable.
Before that, I had Covad DSL. Until they dropped me and there weren't any other DSL providers.
Before that, I had ISDN. It cost more, but it was broadband.
Before that, I had dial-up.
You can get a frame circuit or ISDN.
The end result would be about the same anyway.
Cool. Thanks.
Why would they generate lots of ping requests?
If you prioritize packets based on location, how does that help the bandwidth issue? If you have a T-1 (1.54Mb/s) and another server on your high priority list has a T-3 (45Mb/s), your T-1 will still be flooded from a download to that high priority site.
The only way I see is to limit the bandwidth available to people based upon their usage of it.
It shouldn't be too hard to keep a daily count of bits downloaded/uploaded.
If they start losing bandwidth in the middle of a download, so what? That just means that their download will take longer. If it is in the middle of a game, then that's the way it is. If they don't like it, they can go to a different ISP. But if you don't throttle the bandwidth, they will ALWAYS have a sucky connection for their game. This way, after a few days of playing, you'll know what bandwidth to expect.
Sure, everyone would love to get massive bandwidth for $10 a month.
The question is, are you (the ISP) being charged by the GB used or a flat rate per Mb/s?
If it is by the GB, then this cost is easily passed on to the customer. In fact, that cost SHOULD be in the customer's contract.
If it is a flat rate, then can you throttle their bandwidth as their usage climbs? Just break the bandwidth down into 5 or 10 segments.
1 = people who download/upload less than 1 MB per month. These people get 1 Mb/s to themselves and they should NEVER see any delays because they aren't moving that much to begin with.
2 = over 1 MB but less than 5 MB. These people get 1 Mb/s to themselves. The might see more slowdowns than group 1, but not much.
And so on and so forth until you get to group #10 and they are downloading/uploading 50GB or whatever a month. These people get 1 Mb/s and they have to share it with all the other hogs.
Now, when the lower groups are not utilizing their bandwidth (late at night?), the higher groups can share that. But when someone in a lower group comes on, they get the bandwidth allocated to them.
Sure, the numbers would have to be worked out a bit, but the logic sounds good.
You provide service for the largest portion of your customers while allowing the higher bandwidth hogs to use the leftovers when they are available.
New customers get put in the lowest group and, as their usage grows, they move up the groups.
Is that possible?
You will notice that the State of NY did something and the ACLU is protesting it saying that it is unconstitutional.
Now, refer back to my points that not EVERYTHING is broken down to Rights and Crimes.
Then, refer back to where I pointed out that laws can be passed that may be unconstitutional, and those laws are challenged in court to determine their constitutionality. (Not, as you maintain, Rights are restricted as new laws are made.)
So, what you are refering to seems to be this EXACT PROCESS.
!!!SMACKDOWN!!!
"Please do this. I shudder at the thought of an America where this sad belief of yours is prevalent."
Shudder then.
It's not my belief.
!!!IT IS THE LAW!!!
!!!SMACKDOWN!!!
Wait until the election is over. We still have time.
"The USSC can't just declare off-hand that something doesn't fit within the constitution."
It wasn't done "off-hand". Read the citation.
"No, you didn't show me the decision, you told me the result of the decision."
Yes I did. The decision was that child pornography does not fall under the 1st Amendment.
You are wrong AGAIN!
"As I said, US laws don't affect me, but the right of free speech enchrined in the first amendment is drawn from English common law, and Australian law also acknowledges the right of free speech."
Yep, and electricity can produce light and candles can produce light, but because you might know something about candles does NOT mean that you know anything about electricity.
"So I know about free speech, and I know it is intended to cover more than simply truth."
Nice try. You might know SOMETHING about free speech in England and Canada and Australia, but that does not mean you know ANYTHING about free speech in the USofA.
"After all, how can free speech allow flat earthers, creationists and scientists all to have the same rights to publish their viewpoints?"
Because it is NOT a binary system. I've been over that before.
"How can the legal system determine "truth" in philosophy?"
Why should it? Truth in legal terms is all it is concerned about.
"Yet all these things are covered by the right of free speech."
No they are not. You keep thinking in your binary "logic" mode.
"Why is the defining statement of free speech "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?"
Strange, but I do NOT see that statement in any of the US laws. Maybe you can cite it? After all, if it is not part of the US law, how can it be the defining statement of US law?
Once again!
I deliver the !!!SMACKDOWN!!!
So, if it is the bank's property, then why doesn't LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT have the same access to it that the FBI now does?
Why do the local cops have to get warrants to access my (a local citizen) information from a local bank?
But the FBI does not have to?
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If that information is not mine, who's is it?
"The USSC decalred that child pornography does not fall under the 1st amendment. And what was their reasoning for that?"
That doesn't matter. The USSC has THE final say on what is legal and Constitutional.
YOUR point was that child pornography was censored, but that censorship did not fit my position on the first amendment.
"When I say "I don't need to know", it's because I'm not a US citizen, so US laws aren't relevant in my life."
Yet you will go on and on and on and on about how I, a US citizen who has been educated in US law am wrong and you, someone who has not been so educated, is right.
Despite my showing you the decision by the USSC.
!!!SMACKDOWN!!!
"You still haven't answered my question. Does freee speech cover fiction? Well?"
Yes I did. Over and over and over.
Free speech ONLY covers the truth.
Do you believe fiction is truth?
"You can blather on all you want, thinking you have found the answer, but it's not that simple."
Actually, it is. The USSC reviewed the case and made their judgement. Therefore, it is US law.
"The right of free speech does cover everything that is not specifically banned."
Keep saying that. "When I say "I don't need to know", it's because I'm not a US citizen, so US laws aren't relevant in my life." Yet you keep saying that you know it better than I do.
"Free speech is not limited to truth."
Keep saying that. "When I say "I don't need to know", it's because I'm not a US citizen, so US laws aren't relevant in my life." Yet you keep saying that you know it better than I do.
"it's far more complex, which is why attempts to restrict speech end up in the supreme court."
You've been shown to be wrong on pornography (maybe in the country YOU live in, it is censored).
You've been shown to be wrong on perjury.
You've been shown to be wrong on fraud.
You've been shown to be wrong on libel.
You've been shown to be wrong on slander.
You've even been shown to be wrong on child pornography.
Well, that certainly bolsters your chance of being right on the subject of the first amendment, doesn't it?
"I don't know what argument the US government uses to override/limit Amendment I."
-and-
"Whatever, it isn't relevant; I don't know, and I don't need to know."
You don't know and you don't need to know, but you know that it is more complex than I have stated.
And, again, you are WRONG!
!!!SMACKDOWN!!!
You said that pornography was censored.
1 55&threshol d=1&commentsort=0&tid=133&mode=thread&pid=7888133# 7889597
I said I could pick up pornography at the corner 7-11.
"Making statements doesn't prove a point."
No, but presenting FACTS does. Such as the FACT that you were WRONG about pornography being censored.
"Go look at censorship debates over fiction. They are about harm, not truth, obviously, since fiction is by definition untrue."
What censorship debates? Hmmmm? Go ahead. Substantiate your position. I have YET to see any non-fiction worked censored. I have seen debates about carrying it in a school library. But never about censoring one.
"Some pornography is censored, eg Child pornography. How is that censorship related to truth?"
That was covered in New York v. Ferber before the United States Supreme Court.
The USSC declared that child pornography does NOT fall under the 1st amendment.
I believe I have just delivered a "smackdown" on your position.
Or do you feel up to arguing against the USSC?
heh heh heh
Don't feel bad. You made a mistake of relying upon your ignorance and inherent stupidity when you were facing an opponent with an IQ that's more than triple your's.
To quote you back at yourself:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=91
"I don't know what argument the US government uses to override/limit Amendment I."
-and-
"Whatever, it isn't relevant; I don't know, and I don't need to know."
!!!SMACKDOWN!!!
"As I said, I can claim that you have blue hair, or pink hair, and I have a right to do that. It is not harmful to you."
8 79 064
You only have the Right to say true things.
But that does not mean that all untrue statements are illegal. That is up to the courts to decide. This is NOT a binary situation.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=91155&cid=7
Point for my side.
"Explain how free speech is limited by truth when pornography is censored. Is pornography untrue?"
I can purchase pornography at the corner 7-11. It is not censored.
Another point for my side.
Game, set and match.
Look at how fast SCO execs (the people with the real knowledge of how good their case is) were DUMPING their stocks.
Lots of people buying stocks are fools. Look at how many of them lost money during the "dot com boom".
"I don't know what argument the US government uses to override/limit Amendment I."
No, it is not VI.
"Whatever, it isn't relevant; I don't know, and I don't need to know."
Yes it is because your position does NOT fit the established facts. Therefore, there is something lacking in your position or the facts are wrong.
"What is relevant is that slander and libel can only be found if the statements are BOTH harmful AND untrue."
Yep.
But a statement that is HARMFUL and TRUE is NOT slander nor libel nor perjury nor fraud.
It isn't the HARMFUL that is the key, it is whether it is true or false.
Which pretty much brings this argument back to the beginning, again.
"What do all these laws have in common? The concept that someone or something is harmed."
Nope. Two of your examples have the word PUBLIC right in the name.
Like back in the ORIGINAL story about PUBLIC NUDITY.
How does "obscenity" harm someone?
"Harm to another person or another person's property; that is the principle that is used when justifying any limitations to the right of free speech."
Again, you're confusing the issue with your binary logic.
You have the Right to say TRUE statements.
Even if they cause harm.
So harm is not the deciding factor.
"public nuisance" using only freedom of speech? How?
"public obscenity" using only freedom of speech? How?
"Public indecency laws are a limitation on free speech/expression, and they certainly have nothing to do with truth."
No they aren't. What statement was she making by taking off her clothes?
So, you can say untrue things as long as you don't cause harm.
But you can cause harm as long as what you say is true.
So the harm is NOT the distinguishing factor.
The distinguishing factor is whether it is true or not.
"In the case of free speech, it actually is a binary situation, since the right of free speech covers all expression that is not outlawed. (And occasionally, some that is, in the case of laws that are found unconstitutional)."
Look at that.
"Covers all expression that is not outlawed."
How can it be outlawed if it is a Right?
Laws can be ruled "unconstitutional".
Rights cannot be ruled "illegal".
"I don't see anything in there which limits free speech to truth, do you?"
No, I don't. Neither do I see anything about slander or libel or perjury or fraud. Yet those most certainly are illegal.
Yet your quote from the Constitution would seem to say that laws against perjury and fraud are unconstitutional.
"In any case where free speech is constrained by government, it is done on the basis of harm, either to an individual or to "public morality"."
But the Constitution says that the government CANNOT abridge the freedom of speech.
But now you're saying that the government CAN and DOES abridge the freedom of speech.
So, does the Constitution say that the government can or cannot abridge the freedom of speech?
Your position is not consistent with your example.
...that you cannot be at fault for practicing your Rights.
Which is why some laws have been found to be unconstitutional. Because those laws punish or prevent people from practicing their rights.
Yes, laws have been found to be unconstitutional. Those laws are then removed.
I say something that damages someone's rep and it is false, I can be sued.
Key points:
I said it.
It caused damage.
It was false.
I say something that damages someone's rep and it is TRUE, I am safe.
Key points:
I said it.
It caused damage.
It was true.
The difference is whether it was true or false.
If I had a Constitutional Right to make false statements, then I could not be sued for making false statements.
Civil/Criminal, neither matter in this case. If you aren't comfortable with libel and slander, how about perjury? How about fraud?
Both are CRIMES.
Everything is NOT divided into Rights and Crimes.
Lots of things are not Rights that are not Crimes.
Saying the sky is pink is one of them. It is not a crime, yet it is not a Right.
You say that limitations on the right of free speech are relevant to harm.
Yet libel and slander do not apply if it is the truth.
So it seems that the limitation is whether it is true or not.
I don't think too many people would say that copyrights are bad. The GPL is based upon copyrights.
But I do see a lot of people against software patents.
s20451 is up to +5 Insightful.
/.
Yet that post says nothing more than you'd better not kick the sacred cows on
+5 insightful?
#1. The Israeli thing seems more along the lines of a conspiracy fantasy.
#2. Genocide has very specific meanings. I see the "War on Drugs" as many things, but it is not genocide. I unfairly targets minorities and poor people and is used whenever a politician needs a quick boost in the polls and helps distract the average person from more pressing issues. But it is not genocide.
#3. "feminism"?
So, now America is "ruined"?
I hear that same kind of crap from Rush all the time. It isn't a heresy.
Now, let's look at REAL heresies.
a. Women should be allowed to vote. (Yep, this is close to #3, you'd have thunk that we'd be over this by now.)
Go back far enough and you'd be laughed at for saying that. Come on. Everyone KNOWS that women are not emotionally or intellectually capable of understanding the political process. Heh heh heh. Suppose the election falls on her "time of the month". Even she wouldn't know who she would be voting for.
b. Slavery
All men are created equal. As long as they're white, land-owning males. Jefferson even owned slaves. You were doing a GOOD thing. You were giving them a chance at real religion and civilization.
I just don't accept that it "discredits" anything.
But it does provide a good definition so I used the definition.
"On a more practical matter, though, are you even *from* the US? From what it sounds like, you've never read the Constitution and your username hints of foreign origin. If so, why should you care about US law and why should anyone else value your opinion of it?"
Seattle, Washington, USA
Deal with it.
"Regardless, he would be derelict to ignore either the rights of the defendant or the lack of a victim, as you have."
So, if the people elected vote to pass a law, and the cops enforce that law and the judge finds that they were correct in doing so....
Well, they're just all wrong because YOU know what is "right".
In 99% of cases such as that, you would be considered delusional.
Check out the local psychiatric ward. They're filled with people who "know" what is "right" and "know" that everyone else is "wrong".
You think that everything that isn't a Right is illegal
-or-
That everything that isn't illegal is a Right.
That's not how the US system works. You have basic Rights and the various city, state, federal governments cannot pass laws that limit those rights.
But not EVERYTHING is illegal or a Right.
There are LOTS of activities that are not Rights that are also not illegal.
I can grow green beans at home, but I cannot grow marijuana. The Constitution does NOT have a list of things I can plant at home and things I cannot.
My Rights protect me from unconstitutional laws.
If I had a Right to say untrue things, then I could not be sued for libel or slander because it would be unconstitutional.
That is why the definitions (as posted by the other person) for libel and slander refer to untrue statements.
Again, everything is NOT split between Rights and Crimes.
I did not understand that you did not know that so my examples were difficult for you to understand.
So, someone saying "Jews are faggots" does NOT have the Right to say that because it is not true.
He can be subject to various legal actions (because he does not have that Right).
Which actions depend upon the exact circumstances.
I can go around saying that the moon is made of green cheese.
It's obviously untrue.
I do NOT have a Right to say it.
But it is NOT illegal in any way.
There, is THAT clear enough for you?
Now, when you start saying things about individuals or groups, then it becomes actionable. What actions depend upon the specifics.
Scenario #1. You read a book where someone said all Jews are faggots. You'd have to prove that you were somehow injured by that.
Scenario #2. Someone in Times Square starts talking loudly about how all Jews are faggots. The cops will ask him to shut up and if he refuses, he will be arrested.
Scenario #3. Someone is a home with his friend and he says that all Jews are faggots. Not much you can do there. In fact, you probably won't even be aware that it was even mentioned.
And so forth.
Because it is not a Right does NOT mean that it is a crime.
Because it is NOT a crime does not mean that it is a Right.
Back to the ORIGINAL story.
Public nudity is NOT a Right.
Therefore, laws can be passed against it.
As happened in that city.
And she broke that law.
So I do not know why you are bringing this up.
As for why you don't think a city in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is relevant to a discussion of LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, well, that's your problem then.
Ooooh, "speakers corner". Your link is Canadian. Why do you have trouble understanding that the US is not Canada?
"...and say "All Jews are faggots" *how* are you going to sue?"
You go to the "judge" and you "file" a "lawsuit".
Is that too complicated for you?
"*How*?"
Again, you go to the "judge" and you "file" a "lawsuit".
"I've heard people doing this before (the joys of "Voice of America's" more eclectic programming) and they don't go to jail."
Since you seem to have serious trouble differentiating between Canada and the US, I'm not going to accept your claims about what you have heard.
"If I can get away with that then libel/slander don't cover hate speech in the general sense, do they?"
Did you read the link to the Washington DC page? Why are you trying to claim that libel/slander covers all of "hate speech"? If you aren't claiming that, then what are you claiming?
"Just in the specific sense, such as me saying an untruth like "khasim is a faggot"."
Again, you can't tell the difference between Canada and the US and you don't see why me pointing out that the US has "Hate Crime" laws (with DC as an example) is applicable.
Now, if I was a faggot, would I have any legal recourse to what you just said?
No.
If I was not, then would I have legal recourse?
Yes.
Therefore, whether I have legal recourse depends upon whether what you say is true or not.
Which boils down to you can say anything TRUTHFUL and your Right to Freedom of Speech will protect you.
But you do NOT have a Right to say something UNTRUE.
You do not have the freedom to say anything you want.
If you say something and it harms someone and it is FALSE, then you can be sued for it and that person can claim damages.
If you say something and it harms someone and it is TRUE, then they will not win, even though harm has occured in both cases from you saying something.
Therefore, the difference is whether it is true or false.
Now, unless I can be sued for exercising my Constitutional rights (in which case, they are not rights at all), that means that I do not have a right to say things that aren't true.
Unless you do not understand what the word "right" means in this context?