It can be argued that, but that argument would fail. This clearly should be protected speech. If you can't say "fuck" you can't say "fuck the government".
Free speech is an inalienable human right. The fact that he's in the UK doesn't mean he doesn't have that right. He just lives in a country that doesn't respect basic human rights.
But for that matter, the US doesn't respect basic human rights either. It just fails to respect a different subset than the UK.
What's broken is the American justice system where the state can refuse to push charges against a potential murderer on such flimsy grounds as this, and in particular the fact that, clearly, this is being used to shield a police collaborator from prosecution.
Exactly right. What is needed in the US is a way for the people to initiate prosecution in criminal matters. Generally, if the DA decides that he doesn't want to prosecute, you have no recourse whatsoever. This is how the powerful get away with all sorts of crimes, even stealing billions of dollars, while marginalized groups get felony sentences for very minor crimes.
Wouldn't it be much better if, e.g., the victim of a falsified mortgage could press criminal charges against the bankers who attempted to defraud him without relying on prosecutors who have a cozy relationship with the rich?
Some of the problems they discuss are clearly insoluble. The uncertain career prospects for young scientists are a straightforward matter of supply and demand.
This is not insoluble. We can and should increase demand for talented young researchers. Basic science is the best investment we can as a society, in terms of ROI. The problem is that the returns are enormous but infrequent, and not just limited to the funding body.
If we understand just how valuable basic research is, then our scientists don't have to work as hard to justify their existence. Instead of spending time marketing themselves and their research, they can spend that time checking their work before publication. Nobody does good science when they are worried about being able to pay the mortgage.
In other words, you get what you pay for. If we decide we want a prosperous future, we need to invest in it now.
Nice, it's reportedly going to be open sourced and merged with Tizen. If we can get a fully open source cell phone stack, I might actually buy a cell phone.
Consequently, replacement of fossil fuels by solar alone will be sufficient to quadruple levels of 2008 energy consumption.
If you have 100% efficient solar panels across the entire surface of the earth. Or to put it another way, at about 25% efficiency (good for current solar panels), you would have to cover the entire earth with solar panels if you wanted to switch entirely to solar.
Bands time is finite, so they can't increase supply forever. And many of those popular bands feel some responsibility to their fans who've supported them for years. That means they don't want to charge limit their audience to the rich. In this case, neither of your solutions are workable.
Fortunately, the Grateful Dead came up with a solution. Ticket lotteries. One entry per person, a small maximum number of tickets per entry. This way, at least you have a fair chance of getting a ticket, instead of it being stacked towards the rich or well connected.
I read what he wrote, and now I will comment on what a police state you live in. This is not a difficult line to draw. What this guy did is clearly within his fundamental human rights. The UK government violates these rights, and is apparently proud of it.
The act of jailing this guy is far more harmful and anti-social than anything this guy said. Fucking hypocrits.
You're right, racism is terrible. And it's not OK because it's on the internet. But not everything that is not OK deserves to be countered with violence (that's what jail is, it's kidnapping at gunpoint).
If you would counter speech with violence, it's you who are the danger to society.
He's a really unpleasant person, but he has a right to be unpleasant. He also broke the law, but the law is a particularly oppressive one. Nothing I saw in that video seemed to indicate that he was a threat to anyone. Just a bunch of dick waving.
On the other hand, those like you who think people should be sent to jail for a few lines of text, that's a real threat. You are more anti-social by far than this guy.
Incitement to violence is not a serious crime. Violence itself is a serious crime. Incitement to violence can be no more serious than the violence it incites. Since there was no violence in the case in question, then it's extremely inappropriate for anyone to go to jail.
That's my confusion. Why does it matter to the advertiser whether it's disposible income or not?
Surely if you take two groups of people with the same income, and one group has a greater proportion of disposible income, that group will spend less overall. Seems like the group that has to spend money will be a more lucrative group than the one that doesn't have to spend as much money.
Liam Stacey was not arrested for offensive comments. He was found guilty of inciting racial hatred.
He was found guilty of inciting racial hatred because of the offensive comments he made. That means he was arrested for making offensive comments.
The reality of freedom of speech (at least the US concept) is that it is not consequence free speech.
It does mean free from legal consequences, if it is to mean anything at all.
While the article does not mention any actual harm committed through racial insensitivity, I can only assume that someone was threatened and that the threat was taken seriously through Liam's postings.
Why can you only assume that? There are lots of other things that you could assume, and they're likely to be a lot closer to the truth. I can only assume that the UK is an island full of big wusses who can't stand a little name calling.
Second - it clearly states that a free press / freedom of speech are paramount
Oh well then. Nothing to worry about. If they say they'll respect freedom of speech, that's all I need. It's not like they're going to lie to us, right?
Actually, the solution pre-copyright was the Patronage model.
After the rich are done pillaging civilization, we'll have no choice but to return to the patronage model. Any model that depends on the working classes having expendable income won't work for too much longer.
Doesn't it work the other way too? Parents have kids, kids that need things, things that you might buy from diaperdepot.com if there were a link on your facebook page that is your only remaining connection to the independant young adult you once were.
What's it like where money matters above all else, nepotism abounds and professional ambition transcends all known ethics? Let me tell you.
Business as usual in America.
This might be the future, where only money matters, your voicemail isn't safe and anything can happen when dirty police officers get their take. It might be, but I don't like it.
I think it's safe to say that the Germans know all about the risks of totalitarianism. Especially those over the age of 25 living in former East Germany. I'd be very very surprised if they'd forgotten that lesson.
Surprising how easily they submit to breaches of essential liberties then.
not accelerating before trying to merge on to a highway
Have you ever been to Phoenix? They have stop lights at the end of their freeway onramps. At the *end*. Somehow you're supposed to get from a stop to freeway speeds instantaneously.
Slashdot Mirror
What did this guy say that was an incitement to do anything at all? I've seen the tweets, all they were were insulting. Not inciting.
As for Rwanda, their anti-genocide law is already being abused to quash political speech. Even Amnesty International thinks they go too far.
It can be argued that, but that argument would fail. This clearly should be protected speech. If you can't say "fuck" you can't say "fuck the government".
Free speech is an inalienable human right. The fact that he's in the UK doesn't mean he doesn't have that right. He just lives in a country that doesn't respect basic human rights.
But for that matter, the US doesn't respect basic human rights either. It just fails to respect a different subset than the UK.
What's broken is the American justice system where the state can refuse to push charges against a potential murderer on such flimsy grounds as this, and in particular the fact that, clearly, this is being used to shield a police collaborator from prosecution.
Exactly right. What is needed in the US is a way for the people to initiate prosecution in criminal matters. Generally, if the DA decides that he doesn't want to prosecute, you have no recourse whatsoever. This is how the powerful get away with all sorts of crimes, even stealing billions of dollars, while marginalized groups get felony sentences for very minor crimes.
Wouldn't it be much better if, e.g., the victim of a falsified mortgage could press criminal charges against the bankers who attempted to defraud him without relying on prosecutors who have a cozy relationship with the rich?
Some of the problems they discuss are clearly insoluble. The uncertain career prospects for young scientists are a straightforward matter of supply and demand.
This is not insoluble. We can and should increase demand for talented young researchers. Basic science is the best investment we can as a society, in terms of ROI. The problem is that the returns are enormous but infrequent, and not just limited to the funding body.
If we understand just how valuable basic research is, then our scientists don't have to work as hard to justify their existence. Instead of spending time marketing themselves and their research, they can spend that time checking their work before publication. Nobody does good science when they are worried about being able to pay the mortgage.
In other words, you get what you pay for. If we decide we want a prosperous future, we need to invest in it now.
If so, you're not done yet. If not, find another itch to scratch.
Nice, it's reportedly going to be open sourced and merged with Tizen. If we can get a fully open source cell phone stack, I might actually buy a cell phone.
That reminds me of the definition of a magician. Someone who tells you up front that he's going to lie to you, and then does.
Consequently, replacement of fossil fuels by solar alone will be sufficient to quadruple levels of 2008 energy consumption.
If you have 100% efficient solar panels across the entire surface of the earth. Or to put it another way, at about 25% efficiency (good for current solar panels), you would have to cover the entire earth with solar panels if you wanted to switch entirely to solar.
The canals in Eastern Washington provide me with some of the best bow-fishing for carp in the region.
Why would you want to fish for carp?
Bands time is finite, so they can't increase supply forever. And many of those popular bands feel some responsibility to their fans who've supported them for years. That means they don't want to charge limit their audience to the rich. In this case, neither of your solutions are workable.
Fortunately, the Grateful Dead came up with a solution. Ticket lotteries. One entry per person, a small maximum number of tickets per entry. This way, at least you have a fair chance of getting a ticket, instead of it being stacked towards the rich or well connected.
I read what he wrote, and now I will comment on what a police state you live in. This is not a difficult line to draw. What this guy did is clearly within his fundamental human rights. The UK government violates these rights, and is apparently proud of it.
The act of jailing this guy is far more harmful and anti-social than anything this guy said. Fucking hypocrits.
You're right, racism is terrible. And it's not OK because it's on the internet. But not everything that is not OK deserves to be countered with violence (that's what jail is, it's kidnapping at gunpoint).
If you would counter speech with violence, it's you who are the danger to society.
He's a really unpleasant person, but he has a right to be unpleasant. He also broke the law, but the law is a particularly oppressive one. Nothing I saw in that video seemed to indicate that he was a threat to anyone. Just a bunch of dick waving.
On the other hand, those like you who think people should be sent to jail for a few lines of text, that's a real threat. You are more anti-social by far than this guy.
Incitement to violence is not a serious crime. Violence itself is a serious crime. Incitement to violence can be no more serious than the violence it incites. Since there was no violence in the case in question, then it's extremely inappropriate for anyone to go to jail.
That's my confusion. Why does it matter to the advertiser whether it's disposible income or not?
Surely if you take two groups of people with the same income, and one group has a greater proportion of disposible income, that group will spend less overall. Seems like the group that has to spend money will be a more lucrative group than the one that doesn't have to spend as much money.
Liam Stacey was not arrested for offensive comments. He was found guilty of inciting racial hatred.
He was found guilty of inciting racial hatred because of the offensive comments he made. That means he was arrested for making offensive comments.
The reality of freedom of speech (at least the US concept) is that it is not consequence free speech.
It does mean free from legal consequences, if it is to mean anything at all.
While the article does not mention any actual harm committed through racial insensitivity, I can only assume that someone was threatened and that the threat was taken seriously through Liam's postings.
Why can you only assume that? There are lots of other things that you could assume, and they're likely to be a lot closer to the truth. I can only assume that the UK is an island full of big wusses who can't stand a little name calling.
Second - it clearly states that a free press / freedom of speech are paramount
Oh well then. Nothing to worry about. If they say they'll respect freedom of speech, that's all I need. It's not like they're going to lie to us, right?
Actually, the solution pre-copyright was the Patronage model.
After the rich are done pillaging civilization, we'll have no choice but to return to the patronage model. Any model that depends on the working classes having expendable income won't work for too much longer.
Doesn't it work the other way too? Parents have kids, kids that need things, things that you might buy from diaperdepot.com if there were a link on your facebook page that is your only remaining connection to the independant young adult you once were.
Page 3 before gay men are even mentioned and that's the headline? I'm not even going to bother making an on topic post.
What's it like where money matters above all else, nepotism abounds and professional ambition transcends all known ethics? Let me tell you.
Business as usual in America.
This might be the future, where only money matters, your voicemail isn't safe and anything can happen when dirty police officers get their take. It might be, but I don't like it.
The future? This is the present!
I think it's safe to say that the Germans know all about the risks of totalitarianism. Especially those over the age of 25 living in former East Germany. I'd be very very surprised if they'd forgotten that lesson.
Surprising how easily they submit to breaches of essential liberties then.
Does the same apply for religion, sexuality, etc?
The most dangerous part of any flight is the drive to the airport.
That used to be the case. These days, the most dangerous part of any flight is when you are assaulted by the TSA.
not accelerating before trying to merge on to a highway
Have you ever been to Phoenix? They have stop lights at the end of their freeway onramps. At the *end*. Somehow you're supposed to get from a stop to freeway speeds instantaneously.