If you are waiting your turn and speaking when it is your turn to speak rather than over someone, as is how Twitter works, then you aren't yelling over anyone at all. Even better, I as a citizen can decide to block or not block those people. The President has no business doing it against my wishes.
It means the government canot stop you from speaking because it doesn't like what you say. There couldn't be a more clear cut violation of the first amendment than this. For all the times people mistook the first amendment as applying to corporations this is literally an actual case of the President, a government servant, telling some people "I don't like what you are saying, so I am stopping you from saying it."
We don't need to look at robots.txt to know that LinkedIn would prefer they not do this, as there is a lawsuit about it. I'm guessing you don't understand that robots.txt is a request, not a mandate.
"... except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." You need to read your own links.
"Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law." So I should have said "This particular kind", but again, the speech in question meets the criteria and VA is the inarguable proof.
This isn't about espousing an ideology, it is about hate speech, which is NOT protected by the first amendment. Furthermore, Google has very little power here. They cannot stop them from going to the next registrar.
A lot of people consider things to be a lot of things. When the Pope commits acts of terrorism we will block any hate speech from him, but that is a red herring now, isn't it.
Somebody who likely knows the end result and is hoping for a YUGE payday, a tremendous payday, a payday so big I'm telling you, that you'll be sick of paydays!
We already are on dangerous ground. This is a step away from it. Nobody is going to start censoring capitalists or communists unless they too start marching with torches yelling Heil Trump and committing acts of domestic terrorism.
"It appears you misinterpreted what you read in your zeal to prove someone wrong. Would you like help with basic reading comprehension? " - Flippy Clippy
I didn't get it backwards. It is the webserver configuration page that throws the E418 when trying to get it to connect to the cloud. Read my post again.
If your story is true then I'm sorry you didn't get your child vaccinated, and it makes sense that you would need to blame someone else, but you should probably get some counseling. CBT might help as well. Think of it as an opportunity to learn a new language that few know, which could help you bond in ways you otherwise wouldn't.
Slashdot Mirror
If you are waiting your turn and speaking when it is your turn to speak rather than over someone, as is how Twitter works, then you aren't yelling over anyone at all. Even better, I as a citizen can decide to block or not block those people. The President has no business doing it against my wishes.
It means the government canot stop you from speaking because it doesn't like what you say. There couldn't be a more clear cut violation of the first amendment than this. For all the times people mistook the first amendment as applying to corporations this is literally an actual case of the President, a government servant, telling some people "I don't like what you are saying, so I am stopping you from saying it."
Yeah, there WAS nothing stopping them, but now there is a court order.
They aren't any different and that's the point. They can't make it public and not public at the same time.
We don't need to look at robots.txt to know that LinkedIn would prefer they not do this, as there is a lawsuit about it. I'm guessing you don't understand that robots.txt is a request, not a mandate.
Ah yes, the popular "if than" clause. Clearly the question was "Could you be a bigger idiot?"
"... except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." You need to read your own links.
That isn't even close to true.
"Only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has the intention to incite such action and there is the likelihood that this will be the consequence of his or her speech, may be restricted and punished by that law." So I should have said "This particular kind", but again, the speech in question meets the criteria and VA is the inarguable proof.
You simply don't understand how laws work. Case law covers this, and no I'm not googling it for you. Get your own education.
Hate speech is illegal,so what you are asking is do I want corporations to comply with the law.
Toga Party!
You have created a false dichotomy. If a capitalist Christian kills, a one goes in each column, not one or the other.
Ignorance doesn't mean "facts you don't like".
This isn't about espousing an ideology, it is about hate speech, which is NOT protected by the first amendment. Furthermore, Google has very little power here. They cannot stop them from going to the next registrar.
Actually what is being said is that hate speech isn't protected by the first amendment so this is much ado about nothing.
A lot of people consider things to be a lot of things. When the Pope commits acts of terrorism we will block any hate speech from him, but that is a red herring now, isn't it.
And Christians have killed more than those two combined. Try to have a point next time.
Somebody who likely knows the end result and is hoping for a YUGE payday, a tremendous payday, a payday so big I'm telling you, that you'll be sick of paydays!
We already are on dangerous ground. This is a step away from it. Nobody is going to start censoring capitalists or communists unless they too start marching with torches yelling Heil Trump and committing acts of domestic terrorism.
Smart people are less likely to kill people than idiots, so by your argument you are like a child with a loaded gun.
No, you don't count, if only because you claim to be an uberuser that sometimes "can't" access his servers.
Woooossshhh
"It appears you misinterpreted what you read in your zeal to prove someone wrong. Would you like help with basic reading comprehension? " - Flippy Clippy
I didn't get it backwards. It is the webserver configuration page that throws the E418 when trying to get it to connect to the cloud. Read my post again.
If your story is true then I'm sorry you didn't get your child vaccinated, and it makes sense that you would need to blame someone else, but you should probably get some counseling. CBT might help as well. Think of it as an opportunity to learn a new language that few know, which could help you bond in ways you otherwise wouldn't.