"Put the barrel of the gun against his temple, now flick the safety catch off, now softly squeeze the trigger" is not communicating an "idea" or an "opinion", therefore it is not the abstract "speech" of "freedom of speech".
Yes it is. The person with the gun to a man's temple is the sole actor. Only he is responsible. The words do nothing. A person has to act.
They can sue all they want, and the judge should promptly toss it out and fine them for court costs. Libel/slander are nothing but bullshit attempts to silence criticism.
Only because the law says so. If nobody follows there would be no war. The followers are always the danger. They must be taught to resist temptation, not prohibit it.
*Spoken words are not speech*. I'll have to look that up and get back to you on that. In the meantime, until some new evidence pops up, I'll just say that you are nuts, because, as far as I am concerned, all information of the non tangible nature, even when in tangible form, such as print and pictures, can be considered as speech. It has to get physical before it becomes an issue.
That's right. However, the 1st amendment does explicitly enumerate the right to free speech without any conditions. All "legalized" restrictions are in violation.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. and it goes on...
There are no free speech protections while any conditions exist.
There's no free speech protections in Europe, or technically anywhere outside the US, who are the only ones where the statute says no law. Of course it's also the place where the Supreme Court says, fuck that, in its fanciful interpretations of the explicitly written law.
There is no such thing! There is ALWAYS a man in the middle. The man who acts, and only the man who acts is solely responsible for his actions. "Following orders" is no excuse. You either control yourself or you don't. The law exists only as political expediency to protect authority.
Well then, blame the angry crowd. They gave their attention. The angry crowd needs to quit acting like a child, and learn to restrain itself. Don't go around blaming a guy just because someone reacted badly to what he said.
Slashdot Mirror
"Put the barrel of the gun against his temple, now flick the safety catch off, now softly squeeze the trigger" is not communicating an "idea" or an "opinion", therefore it is not the abstract "speech" of "freedom of speech".
Yes it is. The person with the gun to a man's temple is the sole actor. Only he is responsible. The words do nothing. A person has to act.
They can sue all they want, and the judge should promptly toss it out and fine them for court costs. Libel/slander are nothing but bullshit attempts to silence criticism.
You did nothing of the kind. Not even close, but I guess you win the internets. I have no use arguing with people who lack basic comprehension.
When did VW get a senator?
:-) How you transmutilated what I said into that, I'll never know. I'll have to assume English is not your native language.
The attitude against free speech is actually beyond majority status. New restrictions will pass easily.
Only because the law says so. If nobody follows there would be no war. The followers are always the danger. They must be taught to resist temptation, not prohibit it.
*Spoken words are not speech*. I'll have to look that up and get back to you on that. In the meantime, until some new evidence pops up, I'll just say that you are nuts, because, as far as I am concerned, all information of the non tangible nature, even when in tangible form, such as print and pictures, can be considered as speech. It has to get physical before it becomes an issue.
Then no free speech exists anywhere.
That's right. However, the 1st amendment does explicitly enumerate the right to free speech without any conditions. All "legalized" restrictions are in violation.
There are no conditions written into the 1st amendment. All interpretations to the contrary are bogus.
You didn't finish it:
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. and it goes on...
There are no free speech protections while any conditions exist.
...hey have the free speech rights to portray GEMA however they like, in their publications.
Free speech rules only apply in the US. Every place else is up for grabs.
There's no free speech protections in Europe, or technically anywhere outside the US, who are the only ones where the statute says no law. Of course it's also the place where the Supreme Court says, fuck that, in its fanciful interpretations of the explicitly written law.
Yeah, the plastic they use for retail packaging should be strong enough.
Since when is giving money to someone speech?
Giving it is okay. Taking it is the crime. The sinner is Eve, not the serpent :-)
And not a single moment of the thing in operation. I smell a fish. And the price! Jeeze!
...direct speech -> violence...
There is no such thing! There is ALWAYS a man in the middle. The man who acts, and only the man who acts is solely responsible for his actions. "Following orders" is no excuse. You either control yourself or you don't. The law exists only as political expediency to protect authority.
Another day older and deeper in debt..
Well then, blame the angry crowd. They gave their attention. The angry crowd needs to quit acting like a child, and learn to restrain itself. Don't go around blaming a guy just because someone reacted badly to what he said.
How do you incite a riot without physically assaulting someone?
Ah, but rock crushes scissors, and paper (money) covers rock. The house always wins.
Money trumps law
Competition... From the government, if necessary. Let's put our tax dollars to work for us for a change.
It's News of the Future
To paraphrase, when the government does it, it's not illegal. It would be absurd to expect any other outcome.