Okay, if you prefer, I can kill off the yahoos that vote against me. So, should I form up a militia to battle the corrupt sheriff so I can bury some internet tubing on my street? Personally I wouldn't care for the resulting property damage. If some bigger muscle can come in to keep the peace, then that's what should be done. In the same fashion of the "War of Northern Aggression". The lawyers have no place here... I'm not interested in infantile philosophizing by a bunch of crazy baldheads that are only stealing stealing my tax money and the morons who vote for them. I only want to see the work done.
Sure, proving speech can compel action changes everything. It would be giving it actual physical attributes, like a gun might have, and/or it proves that free will does not exist. Until then, the censors can piss off. Hopefully we can find a technical method of helping them to do just that. All this arguing over it is silly, so I have to assume that this cat and mouse game will go on indefinitely. Whenever I hear about censorship, my very first reaction is to find and advocate a way to circumvent it. That is much preferable to discussing its perceived merits and letting mere majorities decide what is 'right'.
Remove the speech from the equation, and no one would be punished.
Remove speech from the equation, and the equation itself evaporates. You're still claiming words are the motivation for acting. No, the actors' decisions are the sole cause, motivation is irrelevant.
I don't care who does it. It just has to be done, and if somebody has to step because the locals won't handle it, all the better. Screw the complainers.
I should add, when you justify weaselly interpretations of the law, you justify every 'socialist' program put forth by Obama. If you can regulate speech, against the written law, then you can give away free drugs and cell phones to people you think of as 'deadbeats' for the 'general welfare'.. We can both play this little game indefinitely, but regardless, the talk is tiresome. I believe technical circumvention is our only hope against the censors.
You know, the funny thing about speech is that you have to be taught how to react, in other words, you have to learn the language. If everyone reacted the same way to the same words, your spiel might have a point, but they don't, thus neither do you. I'll tell you what people might universally react to, tone of voice. Even your dog understands inflection. So, Mr. Bureaucrat, regulate that... Leave the words alone!
The entire pipe should be public works, like the interstate and any other public infrastructure. The service providers can compete for management positions.
Don't you mean what could have American citizens done about it? The answer was right in front of their noses. It's not complicated people.. You're only confusing yourselves with all your silly philosophies.
Please, don't be a fool trying to conflate guns with speech. Words cannot cause harm. Only the person's action (shooting the gun) can. You are only rationalizing the authoritarian. Just say you don't believe in free speech, and we can move on to more important things, like baseball..
The differences between state and federal are irrelevant. The 1st Amendment applies to them all... To hell with your nuance Read the damn words
The law requires great precision. The 1st (and the 2nd) cannot be more accurate. If congress cannot make a law restricting speech, there shall be no [fucking] law... 'Not abridged' means that and only that. It grants no leeway. I've recently discovered the total futility of argument. To hell with all the incessant chatter. Now, I only try to find technical ways of circumventing censorship. And then you all can cry amongst yourselves about "compelling state interest"..
What the heck have I said that leads you to conclude I'm a libertarian?
I've been a follower for years.. And your sig kinda gives you away.
That's right, the 14th Amendment applies the entire constitution to the states, so they can't weasel out. That is a good thing. Censorship is not. Until you can prove that speech can physically compel a person to act, you have no right to regulate it. In this regard the US constitution is the most advanced, realistic document that can ever be written on the subject, and everybody else needs to catch up, or, you can just say that free will doesn't exist and be done with it. I don't care what you do, just be honest about it, or you're all a bunch of frauds.
you can start by looking up "strict scrutiny" and "compelling state interest."
Okay, I did... I don't see any mention of those things in the amendment. Are you saying some statutes can take precedence over explicit written law in the constitution? That it can be interpreted in any political fashion of the times? Either it applies or it doesn't. You believe in free speech, or you don't. Tell me which. I don't care either way. Just stop with the charade. That's all I ask. See, this this is where I don't think you so-called 'libertarians' really believe in freedom, if you're willing to take away my rights for "compelling state interest", you are the same kind of authoritarian we were told to fight. You sound as phony as the democrats with their faux 'liberalism'. Verbal/visual expression is speech, failure to mention the word changes nothing. The 1st Amendment states, "...no law..." You just can't get more absolute. Change your constitution to reflect your desired restrictions, or, for what it's worth (which is nothing to you, or anybody else here), I personally will forever call you hypocrites and phonies (nyah), and have nothing but contempt for your legal system, which you have made baseless, unable to follow your own rules. The law becomes as perverse as a priest assaulting young alter boys.
Speech is speech. It carries no value or power of its own. Nobody has any right to regulate it in any fashion. Your analogy is precisely the same argument being used to justify civil forfeitures of property by the government. You disappoint me. I expected better of you.
So it's okay to censor speech based on statistical risks? So much for all that crap about individual liberty, huh? Your slope is too slippery for my tastes. Whatever, if you want your limits, you have to amend your constitution. The present law is quite explicit, even with its selective toothless enforcement.
Where?! Based on written law in the US, what possible crime can be committed by speech? Where is the compelling force? The 1st Amendment specifically outlaws all restrictions on speech. To change that requires another constitutional amendment. The process is all spelled out. It should be that way, or the highway for anyone who wants to legally restrict speech in the United States.
It doesn't matter what he said. The 1st Amendment is supposed to protect his right to say it. You can't just go around implying restrictions that are not written into the law. But that is what is happened and it's wrong.
...she disparaged it as garbage literature and said it didn't count.
I run into this all the time. It only illustrates the futility of reasoned argument. Facts just get in the way. The wall goes up, and it's over. All the shrinks have this stuff well documented.
Slashdot Mirror
You all win... I'm tired...
Okay, if you prefer, I can kill off the yahoos that vote against me. So, should I form up a militia to battle the corrupt sheriff so I can bury some internet tubing on my street? Personally I wouldn't care for the resulting property damage. If some bigger muscle can come in to keep the peace, then that's what should be done. In the same fashion of the "War of Northern Aggression". The lawyers have no place here... I'm not interested in infantile philosophizing by a bunch of crazy baldheads that are only stealing stealing my tax money and the morons who vote for them. I only want to see the work done.
Sure, proving speech can compel action changes everything. It would be giving it actual physical attributes, like a gun might have, and/or it proves that free will does not exist. Until then, the censors can piss off. Hopefully we can find a technical method of helping them to do just that. All this arguing over it is silly, so I have to assume that this cat and mouse game will go on indefinitely. Whenever I hear about censorship, my very first reaction is to find and advocate a way to circumvent it. That is much preferable to discussing its perceived merits and letting mere majorities decide what is 'right'.
Remove the speech from the equation, and no one would be punished.
Remove speech from the equation, and the equation itself evaporates. You're still claiming words are the motivation for acting. No, the actors' decisions are the sole cause, motivation is irrelevant.
Whether right or wrong, a law exists...
And this only confirms my whole point that *might makes right* is the rule of the day.
I don't care who does it. It just has to be done, and if somebody has to step because the locals won't handle it, all the better. Screw the complainers.
I should add, when you justify weaselly interpretations of the law, you justify every 'socialist' program put forth by Obama. If you can regulate speech, against the written law, then you can give away free drugs and cell phones to people you think of as 'deadbeats' for the 'general welfare'.. We can both play this little game indefinitely, but regardless, the talk is tiresome. I believe technical circumvention is our only hope against the censors.
...you have to learn the language
and the culture
Sorry, forgot to add that... extremely important
You know, the funny thing about speech is that you have to be taught how to react, in other words, you have to learn the language. If everyone reacted the same way to the same words, your spiel might have a point, but they don't, thus neither do you. I'll tell you what people might universally react to, tone of voice. Even your dog understands inflection. So, Mr. Bureaucrat, regulate that... Leave the words alone!
The entire pipe should be public works, like the interstate and any other public infrastructure. The service providers can compete for management positions.
RE: Subject line
Don't ask... It's a mystery to me too..
Don't you mean what could have American citizens done about it? The answer was right in front of their noses. It's not complicated people.. You're only confusing yourselves with all your silly philosophies.
Please, don't be a fool trying to conflate guns with speech. Words cannot cause harm. Only the person's action (shooting the gun) can. You are only rationalizing the authoritarian. Just say you don't believe in free speech, and we can move on to more important things, like baseball..
The differences between state and federal are irrelevant. The 1st Amendment applies to them all... To hell with your nuance Read the damn words
The law requires great precision. The 1st (and the 2nd) cannot be more accurate. If congress cannot make a law restricting speech, there shall be no [fucking] law... 'Not abridged' means that and only that. It grants no leeway. I've recently discovered the total futility of argument. To hell with all the incessant chatter. Now, I only try to find technical ways of circumventing censorship. And then you all can cry amongst yourselves about "compelling state interest"..
What the heck have I said that leads you to conclude I'm a libertarian?
I've been a follower for years.. And your sig kinda gives you away.
That's right, the 14th Amendment applies the entire constitution to the states, so they can't weasel out. That is a good thing. Censorship is not. Until you can prove that speech can physically compel a person to act, you have no right to regulate it. In this regard the US constitution is the most advanced, realistic document that can ever be written on the subject, and everybody else needs to catch up, or, you can just say that free will doesn't exist and be done with it. I don't care what you do, just be honest about it, or you're all a bunch of frauds.
you can start by looking up "strict scrutiny" and "compelling state interest."
Okay, I did... I don't see any mention of those things in the amendment. Are you saying some statutes can take precedence over explicit written law in the constitution? That it can be interpreted in any political fashion of the times? Either it applies or it doesn't. You believe in free speech, or you don't. Tell me which. I don't care either way. Just stop with the charade. That's all I ask. See, this this is where I don't think you so-called 'libertarians' really believe in freedom, if you're willing to take away my rights for "compelling state interest", you are the same kind of authoritarian we were told to fight. You sound as phony as the democrats with their faux 'liberalism'. Verbal/visual expression is speech, failure to mention the word changes nothing. The 1st Amendment states, "...no law..." You just can't get more absolute. Change your constitution to reflect your desired restrictions, or, for what it's worth (which is nothing to you, or anybody else here), I personally will forever call you hypocrites and phonies (nyah), and have nothing but contempt for your legal system, which you have made baseless, unable to follow your own rules. The law becomes as perverse as a priest assaulting young alter boys.
Speech is speech. It carries no value or power of its own. Nobody has any right to regulate it in any fashion. Your analogy is precisely the same argument being used to justify civil forfeitures of property by the government. You disappoint me. I expected better of you.
So it's okay to censor speech based on statistical risks? So much for all that crap about individual liberty, huh? Your slope is too slippery for my tastes. Whatever, if you want your limits, you have to amend your constitution. The present law is quite explicit, even with its selective toothless enforcement.
Did it work?
Why even report on it?...
It isn't verifiable.
Not much else to talk about right now. You know, except maybe the weather... Is it raining where you are?
It's not for 'lack of training' that they propagate this stuff. The boss wants it on the front page. Makes for a good whodunit.
admitted a criminal conspiracy.
Where?! Based on written law in the US, what possible crime can be committed by speech? Where is the compelling force? The 1st Amendment specifically outlaws all restrictions on speech. To change that requires another constitutional amendment. The process is all spelled out. It should be that way, or the highway for anyone who wants to legally restrict speech in the United States.
It doesn't matter what he said. The 1st Amendment is supposed to protect his right to say it. You can't just go around implying restrictions that are not written into the law. But that is what is happened and it's wrong.
First amendment!
*Void where prohibited by law..
...she disparaged it as garbage literature and said it didn't count.
I run into this all the time. It only illustrates the futility of reasoned argument. Facts just get in the way. The wall goes up, and it's over. All the shrinks have this stuff well documented.
The dark gray comet
The Philae sleeps tonight
woo-oo-OO-oo..