Different people have different priorities. Some may not care too much about the lives of a select few strangers because those strangers don't influence their lives in any way. Though, the increase in hard drive costs might.
People die all the time. When it's a stranger (especially one from another country), I doubt the average person cares too much about it.
It does not that mean nobody is allowed to react adversely to what you say and that you can say whatever you like without any consequences.
I didn't say that that is what it meant. I said that if the law enables someone to silence you, then I do not believe that you truly have free speech.
If you started a written campaign calling me a child murderer and there was no law of libel, my only alternative would be to come round and either torture a retraction out of you, or simply cut your throat.
You could also ignore it, ask me to retract the statements, or go on a campaign on your own (which would have about the same effect as cutting my throat in that it changes nothing).
The two are more different than they appear at first glance.
It's not much different when we're talking about this. Either way, just about anything could stop someone from pursuing "happiness" since the definition of "happiness" varies from person to person. That is why I said that it was vague.
"Pursuit of happiness" is pretty vague, I think. I don't really agree with it, but I guess in this instance society has decided to limit speech in favor of the "pursuit of happiness."
Libel laws were created to add responsibility to speech, not to take away free speech.
I don't care if you agree with libel laws, but it is restricting speech (at least some type of speech). What else is it doing? You're punished in some way (with the help of the government and its laws) for your speech. I don't think that's how free speech works.
A right is a right as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights.
You mean like the right to not be offended, the right to not have other people make others not like you using speech, or the right to not have your imaginary reputation ruined by someone? I don't care much for those "rights." How about not being an idiot (as defined by me) by believing everything that you hear?
And it is possible for something to be a right even if doing it means infringing on other peoples' rights. I see no reason that it wouldn't be. You might not like it, but I don't see why it's impossible.
Even if I didn't think that speech needed to be absolutely free, I still don't think I would like this law. There will always be "bad" content posted. I do not think we need to punish the owner of the website (who didn't create the content) for every little thing (because they didn't moderate it). If they can't find out the identity of the one who posted the content, then that is simply too bad. Some "bad" people will get away. That doesn't mean that we need to essentially try to eliminate anonymity.
Nonsense. It's like expecting someone to know how a book is going to end before they've begun reading it.
No. You just mentioned a plan. You didn't say that it had to work. It is likely possible to formulate a plan before you go. Whether it works out or not is another matter.
Statements like, "And if they can't, too bad for them," just make you sound like an entitled little shit.
That statement doesn't ask for anything. How exactly is that "entitled"?
Right. Corporations have provided people with things. Therefore, whatever they do is good! Anyone who says otherwise must stop buying things that corporations made (because I said so).
If he posts as anonymous, it's because he attaches some importance to anonymity. Why deny this to others?
Attaching importance to anonymity is not the same thing as forcing others (in this case, the government) to ensure that you remain anonymous.
Second of all, it's certainly possible to allow some people to have privacy whilst denying it to others. You might call it unfair, but it's likely possible for someone to believe that that is how it should be done.
I just don't think that "you posted anonymously; therefore, your criticisms are dismissed" is a good argument.
Along with installing cameras in every home and spying on phone calls, we need to let the government log everyone's online activity, too. That'll stop those factually evil terrorists!
What are you talking about? Are you saying that because he did not have his private information exposed, that means his opinion is invalid (or that you think it is)? If so, I don't see how that is. I believe his current situation is irrelevant.
"If you were in X situation, you'd change your mind!" That can be used for just about anything.
Or you could be saying that since he has not had his private information exposed here, that means that his criticisms and opinions are invalid (or that you think it is). But, since this is about police, I still don't see what his situation has to do with anything. No matter what, it would likely change nothing.
If they ever decide to stop releasing the source, self entitled trolls like you still have no right to complain: They've released more OS source code than Apple and Microsoft combined ever will.
No one can criticize them because, in your opinion, some of the others are worst (and Google has done some good). Obviously all criticism will be completely invalid.
If things could be worse, the current situation is obviously good.
He asked what was "bizarre" about those things. In my opinion, nothing. I don't feel any sort of shock or amazement when people do too much of something. I couldn't care less what those people do.
Slashdot Mirror
A witch hunt... for the children!
So vigilance actions are ok now?
Wouldn't that depend on who you ask?
Yes. The courts obviously can't be wrong (subject to human error) or corrupt. That's simply impossible.
Different people have different priorities. Some may not care too much about the lives of a select few strangers because those strangers don't influence their lives in any way. Though, the increase in hard drive costs might.
People die all the time. When it's a stranger (especially one from another country), I doubt the average person cares too much about it.
How? Did you personally cause the kid to die?
"Strong" meaning what, exactly?
It does not that mean nobody is allowed to react adversely to what you say and that you can say whatever you like without any consequences.
I didn't say that that is what it meant. I said that if the law enables someone to silence you, then I do not believe that you truly have free speech.
If you started a written campaign calling me a child murderer and there was no law of libel, my only alternative would be to come round and either torture a retraction out of you, or simply cut your throat.
You could also ignore it, ask me to retract the statements, or go on a campaign on your own (which would have about the same effect as cutting my throat in that it changes nothing).
No, once you infringe on my rights, I am going to do something about it, regardless of the law or your precious free speech.
That's fine. And then you can deal with the consequences (if there are any, and that's assuming that there are no restrictions on free speech).
So you should be grateful we have libel laws and a legal system instead.
But I'm not.
but there are no universal eternal rights
I agree.
and no such thing as freedom without responsibility.
I wouldn't call it freedom if the government punishes for exercising it.
But I do have the right to redress
At this current point in time, yes. But I don't really agree with those types of laws.
The two are more different than they appear at first glance.
It's not much different when we're talking about this. Either way, just about anything could stop someone from pursuing "happiness" since the definition of "happiness" varies from person to person. That is why I said that it was vague.
"Pursuit of happiness" is pretty vague, I think. I don't really agree with it, but I guess in this instance society has decided to limit speech in favor of the "pursuit of happiness."
Libel laws were created to add responsibility to speech, not to take away free speech.
I don't care if you agree with libel laws, but it is restricting speech (at least some type of speech). What else is it doing? You're punished in some way (with the help of the government and its laws) for your speech. I don't think that's how free speech works.
A right is a right as long as it doesn't infringe on others' rights.
You mean like the right to not be offended, the right to not have other people make others not like you using speech, or the right to not have your imaginary reputation ruined by someone? I don't care much for those "rights." How about not being an idiot (as defined by me) by believing everything that you hear?
And it is possible for something to be a right even if doing it means infringing on other peoples' rights. I see no reason that it wouldn't be. You might not like it, but I don't see why it's impossible.
Even if I didn't think that speech needed to be absolutely free, I still don't think I would like this law. There will always be "bad" content posted. I do not think we need to punish the owner of the website (who didn't create the content) for every little thing (because they didn't moderate it). If they can't find out the identity of the one who posted the content, then that is simply too bad. Some "bad" people will get away. That doesn't mean that we need to essentially try to eliminate anonymity.
Nonsense. It's like expecting someone to know how a book is going to end before they've begun reading it.
No. You just mentioned a plan. You didn't say that it had to work. It is likely possible to formulate a plan before you go. Whether it works out or not is another matter.
Statements like, "And if they can't, too bad for them," just make you sound like an entitled little shit.
That statement doesn't ask for anything. How exactly is that "entitled"?
You're depriving them of potential future profit. That makes you an evil thief.
I don't see why not. It's certainly possible for people to plan things ahead of time. And if they can't, too bad for them.
Right. Corporations have provided people with things. Therefore, whatever they do is good! Anyone who says otherwise must stop buying things that corporations made (because I said so).
All pedophiles rape children.
If he posts as anonymous, it's because he attaches some importance to anonymity. Why deny this to others?
Attaching importance to anonymity is not the same thing as forcing others (in this case, the government) to ensure that you remain anonymous.
Second of all, it's certainly possible to allow some people to have privacy whilst denying it to others. You might call it unfair, but it's likely possible for someone to believe that that is how it should be done.
I just don't think that "you posted anonymously; therefore, your criticisms are dismissed" is a good argument.
Along with installing cameras in every home and spying on phone calls, we need to let the government log everyone's online activity, too. That'll stop those factually evil terrorists!
What are you talking about? Are you saying that because he did not have his private information exposed, that means his opinion is invalid (or that you think it is)? If so, I don't see how that is. I believe his current situation is irrelevant.
"If you were in X situation, you'd change your mind!" That can be used for just about anything.
Or you could be saying that since he has not had his private information exposed here, that means that his criticisms and opinions are invalid (or that you think it is). But, since this is about police, I still don't see what his situation has to do with anything. No matter what, it would likely change nothing.
Unless I misunderstood you, of course.
If they ever decide to stop releasing the source, self entitled trolls like you still have no right to complain: They've released more OS source code than Apple and Microsoft combined ever will.
No one can criticize them because, in your opinion, some of the others are worst (and Google has done some good). Obviously all criticism will be completely invalid.
If things could be worse, the current situation is obviously good.
Technology never improves or advances. Electric cars will always suck (and something "sucking" is a fact of the universe and not my opinion).
You asked what's "bizarre" about those things. I merely answered.
He asked what was "bizarre" about those things. In my opinion, nothing. I don't feel any sort of shock or amazement when people do too much of something. I couldn't care less what those people do.