Those fonts are read by fontconfig and freetype, while the bug is in the server-side font support, the one where you must run mkfontdir and possibly edit Xorg.conf to install new fonts. I don't think any distribution allows non-root users to do that.
Flock to GNU, I don't know. They would certainly consider it, since the licenses of Intel, Microsoft et al cost them money, a fact that companies are very sensitive to. And after they pay that money, they get a proprietary license that is certainly far more restrictive than the GPL.
The GNU folks "got what they wanted" when Tiemann added C++ to gcc because of the GPL license. Same thing happened with Jobs and Objective C. The GPL is proven to work, and it especially used to work back in the days when spreading FUD about the GPL wasn't fashionable.
About not buying stuff that I don't get source code for: that can only be a philosophical proposition in today's world. The GPL is a bastion to keep our devices hackable, and as you say BSD-licensed code will make the situation worse.
It's not a matter of the existence of the BSD license. The key is the license of the most competitive project. Keep looking at Android as an example: Google dislike the GPL, so if some BSD kernel was on par with Linux for embedded devices, they would certainly have chosen that kernel instead. And we wouldn't even get device vendors to release the kernels.
Look at the Darwin kernel as another real-world example. Its source as released by Apple doesn't even boot nowadays, so the open source community around the Darwin kernel is very small if any.
As a user of the proprietary bit of silicon, because of the BSD license, I don't get a compiler for my machine at all, unless I pay for the company's proprietary one (if that is an option).
This is something that bites me continuously with Android phones: manufacturers will only release the GPL licensed bits, so if I want to run my own software on the phone, I can only get crippled functionality because of all the bits I'm missing (Android has a no-GPL-in-userspace policy).
Please update your FUD. GCC has supported a plugin architecture since 2010. You can use any GPL-compatible license for your plugin. This includes BSD, and in fact, there's a LLVM plugin for gcc.
What features are they missing in FreeType, and where do they get them instead?
I'm asking because on Linux I get subpixel rendering, subpixel hinting, support for TrueType, OpenType, Type-1, WOFF and bitmap fonts, including color emoji (!). HarfBuzz supports quite a lot of exotic scripts, and that supports follows the standardization of those scripts into Unicode, whereas users of proprietary OSes have to buy a new operating system in order to enjoy the same improvement. What's "fucking atrocious" in that?
The Linux desktop 2.0 that has been brewing for the last 15 years will be marvelous once it's finished. Until then, we can rely on the ugly X to get our work done.
You're saying it yourself, there's little reason to fix what is working. There's no reason for you to use, say, X core fonts if you don't want to (and you shouldn't want to of course). Freetype and Xrender will give you state-of-the-art typography support. You wouldn't consider ext4 a "workaround" for minixfs or amiga ffs because Linux, for backward compatibility, continues to support the latter.
And developers don't care anyway, because they'll use a ready-made toolkit, just like Windows developers no longer dirty their hands with RegisterClassEx and WndProcs.
It's younger than UNIX, C, Windows and other venerable stuff which keeps the world going nevertheless. Who cares if it's old? It's not like it hasn't been constantly updated, as per TFA, and by very skilled people, so it has this useful feature: it works here and now. I don't feel the "brokenness" asking to be fixed.
You say "yeah but were positions reversed, the USA would react the same way"
I said that they could, not that they would.
giving as proof your ignorance of any games where the USG is attacked. I point out that there ARE games where the USG is attacked
There are no such games made in the USA, would you really compare BF4 to a homegrown game made in Iran by some Iranian kid who changed some texture of Quake?
& yet the USG has never banned them
What they would do if such a game was successful and mass-marketed as Battlefield 4 is, remains to be seen.
proving you & your conspiracy theory wrong.
What conspiracy?
You can go on any tangents you like but your premise that China is justified in banning a game
You mean the premise where I said that censorship is unacceptable?
because we would too is still wrong.
They're not justified. I pointed out that they banned the game because the game content was offensive for them, which I can understand, but being my culture different from China's, I can not justify.
In The USA there is no means for interdicting any such games and many for making sure it cannot be legally interdicted. IIRC Iran has produced a number of games along these lines. If it doesn't sell in the USA it does not automatically follow that the USG stopped it.
But I didn't say this. My point is, that if nobody in the USA has ever done a game like that, it's because it would be considered highly offensive, by itself. There's no need for the government to declare it outlaw. Attacking the government is obviously considered more offensive than hitting people with a car (as in Carmageddon) or committing assorted crimes, killing the forces of order, and crushing people with a tank (as in the GTA series). The post I was responding to was saying that a realistic simulation game about attacking the government is not a big deal. But if nobody has ever made such a game about the USA, there must be some reason; and that reason is that most people would find such a game offensive.
About the legal means making such a ban impossible: while there's no doubt that the USA are the most free country in the world, history has also shown that they have a habit to overridde even their most sacred laws when the government feels that the country is under threat. Just to make one example, but there are others, http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/12/27/1727207/us-federal-judge-rules-nsa-data-collection-legal : isn't the right to privacy constitutionally guaranteed?
It's not that, though. It's that the game allows players to (gasp) imagine attacking China.
Is there any US game where I can (gasp) bomb NY, invade Washington DC, help set up Communism or Sharia in the country? I'm not saying that censorship is acceptable, but I can understand why they're upset.
I do understand the difference. My example was meant to propose the concept that that the only difference between buying cigarettes from abroad and buying advertising from abroad is, in fact, that there is a long accepted rule against doing the former, while until now there was no rule against doing the latter. Now the rule is there, so the avoidance becomes evasion. Until the EU suppresses that rule, that is.
When the law wasn't there, by unjustly taxing the local advertising providers, the local government itself was skewing the market in favour of the foreign operators, creating a preference for local taxpayer money to be transfered to foreign governments (Ireland? Bermuda? USA?), where it could be spent, for example, financing the NSA or paying the fuel for Brin and Page's private jets. The government was acting against the interests of its own citizens.
Now the playing field is level, and the companies you were talking about are perfectly free to become even richer, which contrary to what you say isn't stigmatized by anyone, as long as they do it by providing better products at better prices instead of relying on legislative advantages.
Are you saying (and you are) that someone in Italy who wanted to advertise on a popular blog hosted in the U.S., should not be able to do so?
Yes. What's exactly wrong with that? If I bring three packs of cigarettes inside the EU, I will get fined at the border for evading something like 20 € of taxes, and my name will even end up into the list of smugglers. Even though the money was mine, and the cigarettes were made outside my country. Nobody has ever objected against that, because paying taxes is seen as normal. So if eluding 20 € of taxes is a crime, why should eluding 10 billion € be considered fair?
It's not like the person in Italy it not already paying taxes on his internet connection.
They're two different services, two different persons earning money, two different tax returns.
It's not like they would not pay taxes if they bought something from the ad.
It depends. If they buy them on Amazon, they won't pay a penny of taxes to Italy, thanks to the same Ireland-Bermuda trick, even though Amazon competes with italian sellers who do pay taxes and present comparable prices to the customers. It's a matter of fair competition, which certainly is very complicated to handle, but can't be dismissed altogether.
The EU needs no army to enforce its decisions. In fact, Italy has a long history of ignoring EU directives when they harm the powerful (while they're inexorable in applying them when they harm normal people). What happens in this case is that the EU opens an infringement procedure, which means that Italy has to pay a fine for each year of non-compliance with the EU laws. In the end, the fine gets paid by Italian taxpayers, so basically the powerful can continue ignoring the law, and normal people pay for it.
Putting together under the same label the whole countries that comprise "southern europe" is a strong operation to begin with. As is defining a single label for "capitalism", for instance northern europe's rhenish capitalism is quite different from that of the USA. Politically, countries of southern europe have never been ruled by radical left-wing governments, while all of them have been ruled for some time by right-wing dictatorships in anti-communist stance. Now if you say that they haven't been able to implement and maintain a healthy modern capitalism system, we agree - I think that I live in the worst place on Earth to start a new business. But this doesn't mean that the majority of their population have a dislike for the USA or reject their influence; at least where I live, old people see them as a powerful ally that helped them get out of the post-WW2 misery, and young people receive them from the media as the only cultural example of how to obtain progress and wealth.
Why do you say so? I live in Southern Europe and people here generally consider the US as the source of everything that's modern and cool, a feeling which is widely reflected by our foreign policy.
Precisely so. Freedom of speech wasn't the problem; people willing to support this nonsense or remain apathetic about it were.
It's like when people argue about whether people are killed by murderers, or by their weapons. At the end of the day, we can't get rid of murderers, but we can get rid of weapons. Likewise, we can't get rid of antisemites, but we can deprive them of their weapon, which is incitation to violence.
If propaganda works so well, then your disgusting laws wouldn't be much good, would they? They'd simply send out their magical brainwashing waves and get the laws struck down so they could carry out their little genocide.
No; altering constitutions requires large majorities, which they can't obtain without spreading propaganda first. We're safe.
Spare me the condescension, this is slashdot, nobody reads it without knowing how cookies work.
But of course your consent was implicit in choosing to visit that URL and request resources from that server; its your fault if you walk into a store and then complain that you're now on their CCTV because you chose to visit that store and play by their rules.
There's no such thing as an implicit consent. A web site can't force me to buy an encyclopaedia because I visited their URL. That's because entering a URL doesn't imply buying encyclopaedias, or selling your own private information. Stores have notices that tell you there's CCTV installed, and most importantly, they won't share tapes with your face, name and timestamp with all the other stores, and in particular they won't sell that information.
A lot of browsers (including IE starting with v6) allow you to disable cookies, or prompt you when they are requested. If this actually mattered to you, you could easily be notified when google cookies are "aimed" at your computer, and deny them, and then refuse to visit those sites.
Why, there are lots of legitimate uses for cookies beyond spying my life. I can't be forced to renounce them because some commercial company wants to sell my personal information without my consent.
And regarding the "multiple countries fined google", the US did not.
Find me a conviction for it in the US, otherwise really not interested in what a german court had to say about google.
Not only Germany. The list of countries that fined Google is much longer. Considering that the federal government used Google (and Yahoo, and Facebook, and whomever else) to spy their own citizen and those of the rest of the world, it's no wonder that they couldn't make a big fuss about privacy. Apparently the States are more sensitive about their citizens' privacy.
Your computer is already receiving the traffic, all google did was record it.
I'm certain that Google made no use of the accidentally collected data. The problem is, that when you're collecting large amounts of private data from the whole world, and gathering that information into a single place, you have to be extremely careful about what you do with that much data, and whose hands you put that data in.
Freedom of speech is not a problem; criticizing the government is a problem.
There are no laws forbidding people to criticize the government. Criticizing the government is constitutionally guaranteed, and a favourite hobby over here.
So... to save people's rights from some hypothetical scenario, we have to infringe upon people's rights. Forgive me for not being unprincipled.
It is no hypothetical scenario. I presented very hard evidence of that happening, and you chose to ignore it. What is hypothetical is this means to criticize the government involving threatening people, of which the citizens of the UK are supposedly deprived.
These laws are in place because people are unprincipled cowards who would rather have 'safety' than freedom.
In my country those laws were put in place right after the last world war by courageous people who physically fought, actually risking their lives, and often lost much, in their struggle to set their home country free from those who believed that Jews were to be exterminated. For cowards that they may be, I'd look at them for inspiration rather than people typing about abstract principles in the comfort and safety of an unthreathened democratic system.
What you're saying is that, what... Europeans can't be trusted not to kill people when someone says out loud that they think it should be done? Are Europeans that powerless over their own actions that they just can't stop themselves from slaughtering others when someone tells them to?
Do you think that nazi-fascists (or whatever other form of totalitarians) were a small group of green people with antennae that landed here from Mars and enslaved every citizen? The truth is that a large portion of the population supported them, and a majority of the population didn't oppose them. This included both the uncultured masses and parts of the intellectual elite. That's because propaganda works. They tell people what they want to hear, especially when they're in difficulty, they point to an enemy, different from them, they tell them that removing that enemy will solve all their problems, and they either come to full power (as it happened between the world wars) or cause acts of violence against that imaginary enemy (as it happened, and still happens today, because of terrorism). This happens only because of hate propaganda. I've heard supposedly cultured people, today, proclaim their hate for Jews (or immigrants, or whatever people they can attach an "others" label to), even when they've probably never met one in person.
How strange, to think that about yourself.
I'm not biologically different than anyone. I've been educated to think that all people are equal, that problems have complex solutions, that one must look at oneself as the cause for his trouble before pointing his finger to the others. But not everyone has this luck. If I were born in the 20s, I could as well have been educated into hating Jews, who knows.
And? What does that have to do with censorship? You act like freedom of speech was the problem...
It is a historically proven fact that incitation to violence leads to violence here. Freedom of speech is not a problem, threatening and slander are.
If dealing with the problem means fewer freedoms, then I want nothing to do with that. Freedom is speech is a fundamental right.
As is the right to phisical integrity and to personal property. Those rights, and many others including freedom of speech, become toilet paper once the incited masses come to power. You may want to have nothing to do with that, but people have to when they end up on the receiving side of violence. Laws are in place to prevent that from happening.
Slashdot Mirror
Those fonts are read by fontconfig and freetype, while the bug is in the server-side font support, the one where you must run mkfontdir and possibly edit Xorg.conf to install new fonts. I don't think any distribution allows non-root users to do that.
The GNU folks "got what they wanted" when Tiemann added C++ to gcc because of the GPL license. Same thing happened with Jobs and Objective C. The GPL is proven to work, and it especially used to work back in the days when spreading FUD about the GPL wasn't fashionable.
About not buying stuff that I don't get source code for: that can only be a philosophical proposition in today's world. The GPL is a bastion to keep our devices hackable, and as you say BSD-licensed code will make the situation worse.
Look at the Darwin kernel as another real-world example. Its source as released by Apple doesn't even boot nowadays, so the open source community around the Darwin kernel is very small if any.
This is something that bites me continuously with Android phones: manufacturers will only release the GPL licensed bits, so if I want to run my own software on the phone, I can only get crippled functionality because of all the bits I'm missing (Android has a no-GPL-in-userspace policy).
Please update your FUD. GCC has supported a plugin architecture since 2010. You can use any GPL-compatible license for your plugin. This includes BSD, and in fact, there's a LLVM plugin for gcc.
I'm asking because on Linux I get subpixel rendering, subpixel hinting, support for TrueType, OpenType, Type-1, WOFF and bitmap fonts, including color emoji (!). HarfBuzz supports quite a lot of exotic scripts, and that supports follows the standardization of those scripts into Unicode, whereas users of proprietary OSes have to buy a new operating system in order to enjoy the same improvement. What's "fucking atrocious" in that?
Straw man.
The Linux desktop 2.0 that has been brewing for the last 15 years will be marvelous once it's finished. Until then, we can rely on the ugly X to get our work done.
And developers don't care anyway, because they'll use a ready-made toolkit, just like Windows developers no longer dirty their hands with RegisterClassEx and WndProcs.
X powers every single Linux-based desktop in use today. It was fast and lean enough to run on Nokia's smartphones. How exactly isn't X working?
It's younger than UNIX, C, Windows and other venerable stuff which keeps the world going nevertheless. Who cares if it's old? It's not like it hasn't been constantly updated, as per TFA, and by very skilled people, so it has this useful feature: it works here and now. I don't feel the "brokenness" asking to be fixed.
You say "yeah but were positions reversed, the USA would react the same way"
I said that they could, not that they would.
giving as proof your ignorance of any games where the USG is attacked. I point out that there ARE games where the USG is attacked
There are no such games made in the USA, would you really compare BF4 to a homegrown game made in Iran by some Iranian kid who changed some texture of Quake?
& yet the USG has never banned them
What they would do if such a game was successful and mass-marketed as Battlefield 4 is, remains to be seen.
proving you & your conspiracy theory wrong.
What conspiracy?
You can go on any tangents you like but your premise that China is justified in banning a game
You mean the premise where I said that censorship is unacceptable?
because we would too is still wrong.
They're not justified. I pointed out that they banned the game because the game content was offensive for them, which I can understand, but being my culture different from China's, I can not justify.
In The USA there is no means for interdicting any such games and many for making sure it cannot be legally interdicted. IIRC Iran has produced a number of games along these lines. If it doesn't sell in the USA it does not automatically follow that the USG stopped it.
But I didn't say this. My point is, that if nobody in the USA has ever done a game like that, it's because it would be considered highly offensive, by itself. There's no need for the government to declare it outlaw. Attacking the government is obviously considered more offensive than hitting people with a car (as in Carmageddon) or committing assorted crimes, killing the forces of order, and crushing people with a tank (as in the GTA series). The post I was responding to was saying that a realistic simulation game about attacking the government is not a big deal. But if nobody has ever made such a game about the USA, there must be some reason; and that reason is that most people would find such a game offensive.
About the legal means making such a ban impossible: while there's no doubt that the USA are the most free country in the world, history has also shown that they have a habit to overridde even their most sacred laws when the government feels that the country is under threat. Just to make one example, but there are others, http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/12/27/1727207/us-federal-judge-rules-nsa-data-collection-legal : isn't the right to privacy constitutionally guaranteed?
It's not that, though. It's that the game allows players to (gasp) imagine attacking China.
Is there any US game where I can (gasp) bomb NY, invade Washington DC, help set up Communism or Sharia in the country? I'm not saying that censorship is acceptable, but I can understand why they're upset.
When the law wasn't there, by unjustly taxing the local advertising providers, the local government itself was skewing the market in favour of the foreign operators, creating a preference for local taxpayer money to be transfered to foreign governments (Ireland? Bermuda? USA?), where it could be spent, for example, financing the NSA or paying the fuel for Brin and Page's private jets. The government was acting against the interests of its own citizens.
Now the playing field is level, and the companies you were talking about are perfectly free to become even richer, which contrary to what you say isn't stigmatized by anyone, as long as they do it by providing better products at better prices instead of relying on legislative advantages.
Are you saying (and you are) that someone in Italy who wanted to advertise on a popular blog hosted in the U.S., should not be able to do so?
Yes. What's exactly wrong with that? If I bring three packs of cigarettes inside the EU, I will get fined at the border for evading something like 20 € of taxes, and my name will even end up into the list of smugglers. Even though the money was mine, and the cigarettes were made outside my country. Nobody has ever objected against that, because paying taxes is seen as normal. So if eluding 20 € of taxes is a crime, why should eluding 10 billion € be considered fair?
It's not like the person in Italy it not already paying taxes on his internet connection.
They're two different services, two different persons earning money, two different tax returns.
It's not like they would not pay taxes if they bought something from the ad.
It depends. If they buy them on Amazon, they won't pay a penny of taxes to Italy, thanks to the same Ireland-Bermuda trick, even though Amazon competes with italian sellers who do pay taxes and present comparable prices to the customers. It's a matter of fair competition, which certainly is very complicated to handle, but can't be dismissed altogether.
The EU needs no army to enforce its decisions. In fact, Italy has a long history of ignoring EU directives when they harm the powerful (while they're inexorable in applying them when they harm normal people). What happens in this case is that the EU opens an infringement procedure, which means that Italy has to pay a fine for each year of non-compliance with the EU laws. In the end, the fine gets paid by Italian taxpayers, so basically the powerful can continue ignoring the law, and normal people pay for it.
Italy gets no subsidies from the EU, they're net contributors to it. Ireland does.
Putting together under the same label the whole countries that comprise "southern europe" is a strong operation to begin with. As is defining a single label for "capitalism", for instance northern europe's rhenish capitalism is quite different from that of the USA. Politically, countries of southern europe have never been ruled by radical left-wing governments, while all of them have been ruled for some time by right-wing dictatorships in anti-communist stance. Now if you say that they haven't been able to implement and maintain a healthy modern capitalism system, we agree - I think that I live in the worst place on Earth to start a new business. But this doesn't mean that the majority of their population have a dislike for the USA or reject their influence; at least where I live, old people see them as a powerful ally that helped them get out of the post-WW2 misery, and young people receive them from the media as the only cultural example of how to obtain progress and wealth.
Why do you say so? I live in Southern Europe and people here generally consider the US as the source of everything that's modern and cool, a feeling which is widely reflected by our foreign policy.
Precisely so. Freedom of speech wasn't the problem; people willing to support this nonsense or remain apathetic about it were.
It's like when people argue about whether people are killed by murderers, or by their weapons. At the end of the day, we can't get rid of murderers, but we can get rid of weapons. Likewise, we can't get rid of antisemites, but we can deprive them of their weapon, which is incitation to violence.
If propaganda works so well, then your disgusting laws wouldn't be much good, would they? They'd simply send out their magical brainwashing waves and get the laws struck down so they could carry out their little genocide.
No; altering constitutions requires large majorities, which they can't obtain without spreading propaganda first. We're safe.
I dont think you understand how cookies work:
Spare me the condescension, this is slashdot, nobody reads it without knowing how cookies work.
But of course your consent was implicit in choosing to visit that URL and request resources from that server; its your fault if you walk into a store and then complain that you're now on their CCTV because you chose to visit that store and play by their rules.
There's no such thing as an implicit consent. A web site can't force me to buy an encyclopaedia because I visited their URL. That's because entering a URL doesn't imply buying encyclopaedias, or selling your own private information. Stores have notices that tell you there's CCTV installed, and most importantly, they won't share tapes with your face, name and timestamp with all the other stores, and in particular they won't sell that information.
A lot of browsers (including IE starting with v6) allow you to disable cookies, or prompt you when they are requested. If this actually mattered to you, you could easily be notified when google cookies are "aimed" at your computer, and deny them, and then refuse to visit those sites.
Why, there are lots of legitimate uses for cookies beyond spying my life. I can't be forced to renounce them because some commercial company wants to sell my personal information without my consent.
And regarding the "multiple countries fined google", the US did not.
http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?Q=520518&A=2341 http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/16/net-us-google-fine-idUSBRE83F00Q20120416 http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/aug/09/google-record-fine-ftc-safari
Find me a conviction for it in the US, otherwise really not interested in what a german court had to say about google.
Not only Germany. The list of countries that fined Google is much longer. Considering that the federal government used Google (and Yahoo, and Facebook, and whomever else) to spy their own citizen and those of the rest of the world, it's no wonder that they couldn't make a big fuss about privacy. Apparently the States are more sensitive about their citizens' privacy.
Your computer is already receiving the traffic, all google did was record it.
I'm certain that Google made no use of the accidentally collected data. The problem is, that when you're collecting large amounts of private data from the whole world, and gathering that information into a single place, you have to be extremely careful about what you do with that much data, and whose hands you put that data in.
Freedom of speech is not a problem; criticizing the government is a problem.
There are no laws forbidding people to criticize the government. Criticizing the government is constitutionally guaranteed, and a favourite hobby over here.
So... to save people's rights from some hypothetical scenario, we have to infringe upon people's rights. Forgive me for not being unprincipled.
It is no hypothetical scenario. I presented very hard evidence of that happening, and you chose to ignore it. What is hypothetical is this means to criticize the government involving threatening people, of which the citizens of the UK are supposedly deprived.
These laws are in place because people are unprincipled cowards who would rather have 'safety' than freedom.
In my country those laws were put in place right after the last world war by courageous people who physically fought, actually risking their lives, and often lost much, in their struggle to set their home country free from those who believed that Jews were to be exterminated. For cowards that they may be, I'd look at them for inspiration rather than people typing about abstract principles in the comfort and safety of an unthreathened democratic system.
What you're saying is that, what ... Europeans can't be trusted not to kill people when someone says out loud that they think it should be done? Are Europeans that powerless over their own actions that they just can't stop themselves from slaughtering others when someone tells them to?
Do you think that nazi-fascists (or whatever other form of totalitarians) were a small group of green people with antennae that landed here from Mars and enslaved every citizen? The truth is that a large portion of the population supported them, and a majority of the population didn't oppose them. This included both the uncultured masses and parts of the intellectual elite. That's because propaganda works. They tell people what they want to hear, especially when they're in difficulty, they point to an enemy, different from them, they tell them that removing that enemy will solve all their problems, and they either come to full power (as it happened between the world wars) or cause acts of violence against that imaginary enemy (as it happened, and still happens today, because of terrorism). This happens only because of hate propaganda. I've heard supposedly cultured people, today, proclaim their hate for Jews (or immigrants, or whatever people they can attach an "others" label to), even when they've probably never met one in person.
How strange, to think that about yourself.
I'm not biologically different than anyone. I've been educated to think that all people are equal, that problems have complex solutions, that one must look at oneself as the cause for his trouble before pointing his finger to the others. But not everyone has this luck. If I were born in the 20s, I could as well have been educated into hating Jews, who knows.
And? What does that have to do with censorship? You act like freedom of speech was the problem...
It is a historically proven fact that incitation to violence leads to violence here. Freedom of speech is not a problem, threatening and slander are.
If dealing with the problem means fewer freedoms, then I want nothing to do with that. Freedom is speech is a fundamental right.
As is the right to phisical integrity and to personal property. Those rights, and many others including freedom of speech, become toilet paper once the incited masses come to power. You may want to have nothing to do with that, but people have to when they end up on the receiving side of violence. Laws are in place to prevent that from happening.