Many cities and states in the US have hate crime laws too. Here's one from our nation's capital, Washington DC. http://mpdc.dc.gov/info/other/hatecrimes.shtm
You might want to note the part about "Telephone harassment" and "Use of racial slurs" and "Verbal abuse" in there.
Again, I really don't care what Canadian law is. This isn't about Canada or Canadians or Canadian law. This is the SECOND time you've tried to use Canada as an example of US law. The next time you do that, I'm going to assume that you are too stupid to understand that Canada is not the US and that you are incapable of rational discussion on this subject.
You can sue for libel or slander even if it does not specifically address you.
As for your book example, now you're getting into "Freedom of the Press". That's in the same amendment but it is slightly different.
The KKK can say things in private meetings that are not allowed to be said in public places.
Just as, in the original story, the woman can be naked in private, but not in public places.
Yes - then Freedom of Speech does not mean what you say it means because it cannot be a crime if it is a right.
No - then you live in a fantasy world.
Posting about how someone in Canada was restricted from saying something in Canada really doesn't matter. Nor is posting some Nazi site. Newsflash for you, it is 2004, not 2025 like on their front page.
If I say "all Jews are faggots", you can, legally, sue me for libel or slander.
Read the subject line. Re:I'm not talking about spam.
And your reply is: "Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Just like porn spammers are soooooo worried that their emails might inadvertently wind up in the inboxes of children."
But that does not mean that.sex would not work better. I can see why very few people would use.net or.org for their sites.
Oh, but I'm typing this into a site called slashdot.org, how amazing. It seems that slashdot.com redirects the user to slashdot.org so I'm thinking that a similar function might work for the.sex sites.
And the reason that many porn sites would adopt the.sex name is that it would place the burden of preventing minors from accessing them onto the parents or other person letting them use the computer.
So, if a minor hits a porn site using a.com address, that site can be sued for sending porn to a minor. This results in cash inflow for the people doing the suing and cash outflow for the porn site.
Sure, some sites will move off-shore, but then they'll have to share that pipe to the US with every other person in that country. That means slower connection speeds and the legit porn sites will move to.sex in the US and have fast connection speeds.
Economics in action.
The majority of legit porn sites will move to.sex while the others will suffer bandwidth constraints.
It will be easy to filter.sex sites for minors, while adults will quickly learn the new addresses.
And you are incorrect in saying that Legal positivism is the scientific method applied to law.
"It also conveniently ignores the entire concept of human rights. Why would anyone but tyrants want to promote that interpretation?"
Nice statement, but you do not provide any support for it.
Then you go on to agree with me that it sounds exactly like our current legal system.
Therefore, the US is a tyranny?
If that were so, then this site would be shut down because you posted that here.
The US is not a tyranny, therefore your statement about legal positivism is incorrect.
"What do you think judges are for, decoration?"
Okay, so I see that your political education has been somewhat lacking.
The cops are not the judges and the judges are not the cops.
Neither the cops nor the judges write the laws.
So, you exercise what you think is your "right" and the cop (on branch) tickets you for violating a law. The judge upholds that ticket. Therefore, all three branches are in agreement that you do NOT have that right.
The people who wrote that law are citizens. The cops are citizens. The judges are citizens. So it seems that the citizens do NOT believe you have that right.
But you do.
In 99% of the cases, someone who believes something that the rest of society does not believe is termed "delusional".
Rights most certainly ARE defined by the government.
Yes, it is positivism. So what?
"Legal positivism is a conceptual theory emphasizing the conventional nature of law. Its foundation consists in the pedigree thesis and separability thesis, which jointly assert that law is manufactured according to certain social conventions. Also associated with positivism is the view, called the discretion thesis, that judges make new law in deciding cases not falling clearly under a legal rule."
Now, to me, that sounds EXACTLY like our current legal system.
So, you're claiming that my position is completely in line with our current legal system and that it is incorrect.
"The fact is that *being naked* is one of the most basic rights a human can have, after *eating* and *drinking* and *fucking*."
Go ahead and fuck in public and you will find out how mistaken you are. You will be arrested and charged.
Even drinking alcohol in public is illegal in many areas.
Oh, you don't view "illegal" as being "illegal" because you believe you have a "right" to do something.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do they go to work for factories instead of where they used to work?
Because most of the work they were doing is being done by machines now.
While it might have been necessary for lots of people to work the farms before, as machinery is deployed, fewer people are required.
The factories are producing items. Those items are being used to replace people in other jobs.
Nice work.
That's right, "Freedom of Speech" does not mean "Freedom to say anything I want to". If it isn't the truth, you can be sued.
Much appreciated.
Many cities and states in the US have hate crime laws too. Here's one from our nation's capital, Washington DC.m
http://mpdc.dc.gov/info/other/hatecrimes.sht
You might want to note the part about "Telephone harassment" and "Use of racial slurs" and "Verbal abuse" in there.
Again, I really don't care what Canadian law is. This isn't about Canada or Canadians or Canadian law. This is the SECOND time you've tried to use Canada as an example of US law. The next time you do that, I'm going to assume that you are too stupid to understand that Canada is not the US and that you are incapable of rational discussion on this subject.
You can sue for libel or slander even if it does not specifically address you.
As for your book example, now you're getting into "Freedom of the Press". That's in the same amendment but it is slightly different.
The KKK can say things in private meetings that are not allowed to be said in public places.
Just as, in the original story, the woman can be naked in private, but not in public places.
Which will get their attention.
Is slander a crime?
Yes - then Freedom of Speech does not mean what you say it means because it cannot be a crime if it is a right.
No - then you live in a fantasy world.
Posting about how someone in Canada was restricted from saying something in Canada really doesn't matter. Nor is posting some Nazi site. Newsflash for you, it is 2004, not 2025 like on their front page.
If I say "all Jews are faggots", you can, legally, sue me for libel or slander.
In the US, certain rights are stated to be inherent. That does not mean that the exist outside of the legal system of the US.
What rights do you believe the government will NOT infringe upon?
I've emailed the admin and, when that failed, I've deleted the user and the list receives "user unknown" messages.
Neither of those work with the lists I am talking about.
And in many cases it is EASIER to get an address blacklisted than to get the damn list admin to unsubscribe someone.
We have people who work here, who sign up for lists, who then leave the company AND THERE IS NO WAY TO STOP THE DAMN LISTS.
I put lots of them in my email scanner, but each entry adds a little more time to the scanning process.
List admins need to focus FIRST on making it ULTRA EASY for someone to UNSUBSCRIBE.
Particularly if the person who did the subscribing is no longer at the address that is receiving the list.
Suppose I own my domain (or at least have full access to it).
#1. I post a few fake addresses to sites.
#2. The spammers pick up those addresses and start sending spam to them.
#3. My email system spots the faked names and drops any further connections from those servers or my firewall drops the connection.
Does anyone see any problems with that approach? Other than the time needed to check through the list of evil addresses.
The only flaw I can see would be if the faked names were somehow sent from legitimate servers. But I don't see how that could easily happen.
+2 insightful for that?
Meanwhile, Linux is being evaluated by cities and governments around the world for use on their desktops?
No references to how Linux fails in "compatibility" or "overall usability".
That's "insightful"?
How is that so?
Or do you take "Freedom of Speech" to mean that I can say things that are not true?
For example, yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is not a fire.
Ooooh, it seems that "Freedom of Speech" doesn't apply to lies. So telling a lie (as in slander) does not come under "Freedom of Speech".
"Oh, I see... just because you don't have an answer, then you want to leave it out of the discussion."
.sex is web (HTTP)
Nope. I just don't see the two problems as having the same solution.
spam is email (SMTP)
Look, they even have different protocols.
But to you, because they're both porn marketing, they're the same.
"Yeah, you're a real intellectual."
No, I'm a technician. I understand protocols.
"Spam is one avenue of marketing, just as registering a particular TLD is another avenue, and is very germain to the discussion."
No. Because they are BOTH marketing does NOT mean that one solution has to apply to BOTH problems.
Again, don't strain yourself. You probably don't know anything about any of the protocols.
Read the subject line.
Re:I'm not talking about spam.
And your reply is:
"Riiiiiiiiiiiight. Just like porn spammers are soooooo worried that their emails might inadvertently wind up in the inboxes of children."
kthxbuhbye
Pray tell what right does slander evolve from?
You are correct that many sites use .com now.
.sex would not work better. I can see why very few people would use .net or .org for their sites.
.sex sites.
.sex name is that it would place the burden of preventing minors from accessing them onto the parents or other person letting them use the computer.
.com address, that site can be sued for sending porn to a minor. This results in cash inflow for the people doing the suing and cash outflow for the porn site.
.sex in the US and have fast connection speeds.
.sex while the others will suffer bandwidth constraints.
.sex sites for minors, while adults will quickly learn the new addresses.
But that does not mean that
Oh, but I'm typing this into a site called slashdot.org, how amazing. It seems that slashdot.com redirects the user to slashdot.org so I'm thinking that a similar function might work for the
And the reason that many porn sites would adopt the
So, if a minor hits a porn site using a
Sure, some sites will move off-shore, but then they'll have to share that pipe to the US with every other person in that country. That means slower connection speeds and the legit porn sites will move to
Economics in action.
The majority of legit porn sites will move to
It will be easy to filter
I posted a very clear definition of it.
And you are incorrect in saying that Legal positivism is the scientific method applied to law.
"It also conveniently ignores the entire concept of human rights. Why would anyone but tyrants want to promote that interpretation?"
Nice statement, but you do not provide any support for it.
Then you go on to agree with me that it sounds exactly like our current legal system.
Therefore, the US is a tyranny?
If that were so, then this site would be shut down because you posted that here.
The US is not a tyranny, therefore your statement about legal positivism is incorrect.
"What do you think judges are for, decoration?"
Okay, so I see that your political education has been somewhat lacking.
The cops are not the judges and the judges are not the cops.
Neither the cops nor the judges write the laws.
So, you exercise what you think is your "right" and the cop (on branch) tickets you for violating a law. The judge upholds that ticket. Therefore, all three branches are in agreement that you do NOT have that right.
The people who wrote that law are citizens.
The cops are citizens.
The judges are citizens.
So it seems that the citizens do NOT believe you have that right.
But you do.
In 99% of the cases, someone who believes something that the rest of society does not believe is termed "delusional".
How can I abuse a right?
She isn't being charged with having a sex site.
..."
She is being charged with being public nudity. The evidence for that being the pictures on her site.
"In the case of a right, there is normally always a victim
What do you mean? I have a right to vote. Where is the victim in me exercising my right to vote?
I really love to stay and chat but I'm heading out to a party now. TTFN
Rights most certainly ARE defined by the government.
Yes, it is positivism. So what?
"Legal positivism is a conceptual theory emphasizing the conventional nature of law. Its foundation consists in the pedigree thesis and separability thesis, which jointly assert that law is manufactured according to certain social conventions. Also associated with positivism is the view, called the discretion thesis, that judges make new law in deciding cases not falling clearly under a legal rule."
Now, to me, that sounds EXACTLY like our current legal system.
So, you're claiming that my position is completely in line with our current legal system and that it is incorrect.
"The fact is that *being naked* is one of the most basic rights a human can have, after *eating* and *drinking* and *fucking*."
Go ahead and fuck in public and you will find out how mistaken you are. You will be arrested and charged.
Even drinking alcohol in public is illegal in many areas.
Oh, you don't view "illegal" as being "illegal" because you believe you have a "right" to do something.
Tell it to the judge.
"Until the exercise of my rights causes verifiable harm to someone else, I have no reason to feel "guilty" and no one can judge me so."
Actually, they can. And once they judge you, they can imprison you.
"That having been said, I'll continue to exercise my freedoms irregardless of what's il-legal. This person sounds like she's going to do the same."
Possibly. And I can see the local law enforcement making lots of money off of fining her for her actions.
This isn't about someone's "right" to be naked.
This is about public nudity.
And it seems that you do NOT have a "right" to be naked in public.
Hmmmm, imagine that.
But that means nothing in this context.
Even without a "victim", some things are illegal.
That is the way it is.
If you don't like it, you can work to change it. But that is the situation right now.
You said that no crime had been committed, but that is based upon YOUR view of what SHOULD be legal.
But until you get the laws changed, your view is worthless. She can still be prosecuted and found guilty.
If you don't hit someone.
But cops will ticket you and the judge will uphold it.
This looks like a slam dunk of a conviction.
Big deal. A fine will be all she gets.