I am free to say whatever I want whenever I want, but I am held accountable for those words.
Then I wouldn't exactly call that "free speech."
If my words encourage hatred towards a minority, I am committing a hate crime.
Are you saying that people shouldn't be able to voice that kind of opinion?
If people listen to your words, then I believe they are at fault (and partly you, but I don't care about the person who said it). If they act 'irrationally', then I think punishment should go to them (if necessary or if possible).
Yeah, but I can magically guess everyone's intent. Intent is the most important thing ever when it comes to speech. They didn't intend to offend you!
Intending to offend someone through the use of words is absolutely horrible. That's why 99% of the people on the internet likely need to be taught a lesson.
Are you incapable of detecting sarcasm or something?
I don't think so. I guess the fact that it's longer than the typical sarcastic post and the fact that I missed some of the more obvious hints is the reason.
I don't give a shit if you got my book from The Pirate Bay. It costs $2 to buy and is available in DRM free PDFs, or even DRM free plaintext if you really want it and you're Richard Stallman (I met you once, by the way, and you were cool. You hated my iPhone though. Sorry bro). If you make $15 Aussie dollars an hour, minimum wage, then $2 represents about eight minutes of your time. If you spent more than eight minutes bringing up the highly overloaded Pirate Bay page, finding a correct torrent, loading the torrent into uTorrent, downloading the file, moving it around on your NAS, putting it into iTunes, getting the book's coverart then syncing it to your iPhone, then yeah you pretty much just robbed yourself.
Get the torrent, start the download, and then do something else while you wait.
And not everyone works all the time (or highly values a bit of time).
That's not always possible or simple if the thing in question is easily abused to begin with. You have to minimize the abuse by setting up checks and balances.
I think that trying to ban things for a certain group of people (or at least trying to make them less available in some ways) is quite different than actually making them do something.
If there's a permit process in place the government can mitigate these problems
It also potentially stops completely valid protests. I'm sorry, but I think you'll just have to deal with the occasional "bad" protest. I refuse to accept a law that hurts valid ones.
First, (and most importantly), the word PEACEABLY that you keep ignoring in your responses, but which is present in language of the amendment does open the language of the amendment to the interpretation that the government has a right to take measure to keep the peace even if it precludes free assembly.
I didn't ignore it. I just don't understand how it opens it up to that. It doesn't explicitly mention anything like that. It could just mean that the government can't enact any laws to prevent peaceful protests. But this permit law is affecting both peaceful and non-peaceful protests. That's what I thought, anyway.
It does NOT dictate that the same is true of municipalities.
I see. So it has not been interpreted that way yet, then? That seems rather disadvantageous for the people, in my opinion (as even speech that is widely regarded as "good" could be limited, if I understand correctly).
In any case, I definitely do not agree with any such laws (even though that won't by itself make the laws vanish).
If a gathering is too large (and in a tight place that's not all that many people) police wouldn't be able to make it through to restore the peace if something were to break out.
That's simply too bad. I don't think they should attack peaceful protesters because of that. As for your analogy, I disagree with that practice as well. "Recommended occupancy," maybe. But not enforced.
City government can insist on that distinction since it is charged with keeping the peace.
I don't recall them having the power to override the constitution in the name of "keeping the peace."
I don't think anyone argued for police harming honest peaceful protesters.
That's not what I meant. I meant the act of requiring permits is what is harmful.
it can require a permit in order to ensure that it is able to keep the peace during the protest.
Where does the amendment mention that? If they want to maintain peace and civil order, then they should specifically go after the ones who are being destructive, I would think. I don't think harming honest protests because they want better control over all protests is worth it.
Some protests may turn violent, but that does not mean you need to violate everyone's rights by requiring a permit to protest. You just need to take care of the violent ones when they occur. I'd much rather have the response time be slower than have protest permits.
I disagree. I'd say that the ones who break the law should be punished. Even if it means that the government can keep better track of protesters, I do not support the permits. I'd rather have some protesters commit illegal acts than make all protesters suffer by requiring permits and putting such powers into the hands of the government.
I don't know if you can look to the past to see advanced AI. And not every system has been tested.
Basic human behavior (affected by society or not) is irrelevant when there will be no real way to earn money anyway. What choice will they have?
It's easy to say, "Capitalism is the only thing that will work. Everything else will fail. That includes systems that haven't even been tested." But whether statements such as that are true or not is a completely different matter.
Some kids hate it. Some kids do poorly. Some people will do better by just going to the college. Some people learn better in different ways. Is this a surprise?
Slashdot Mirror
I am free to say whatever I want whenever I want, but I am held accountable for those words.
Then I wouldn't exactly call that "free speech."
If my words encourage hatred towards a minority, I am committing a hate crime.
Are you saying that people shouldn't be able to voice that kind of opinion?
If people listen to your words, then I believe they are at fault (and partly you, but I don't care about the person who said it). If they act 'irrationally', then I think punishment should go to them (if necessary or if possible).
Yeah, but I can magically guess everyone's intent. Intent is the most important thing ever when it comes to speech. They didn't intend to offend you!
Intending to offend someone through the use of words is absolutely horrible. That's why 99% of the people on the internet likely need to be taught a lesson.
Are you incapable of detecting sarcasm or something?
I don't think so. I guess the fact that it's longer than the typical sarcastic post and the fact that I missed some of the more obvious hints is the reason.
I don't give a shit if you got my book from The Pirate Bay. It costs $2 to buy and is available in DRM free PDFs, or even DRM free plaintext if you really want it and you're Richard Stallman (I met you once, by the way, and you were cool. You hated my iPhone though. Sorry bro). If you make $15 Aussie dollars an hour, minimum wage, then $2 represents about eight minutes of your time. If you spent more than eight minutes bringing up the highly overloaded Pirate Bay page, finding a correct torrent, loading the torrent into uTorrent, downloading the file, moving it around on your NAS, putting it into iTunes, getting the book's coverart then syncing it to your iPhone, then yeah you pretty much just robbed yourself.
Get the torrent, start the download, and then do something else while you wait.
And not everyone works all the time (or highly values a bit of time).
That's not always possible or simple if the thing in question is easily abused to begin with. You have to minimize the abuse by setting up checks and balances.
Discarding the moral teachings that have been handed down over thousands of years is equally ridiculous.
Why is that "ridiculous"? Because they're old?
Therefore, one doesn't exist.
Now the vast majority of the money you have saved by doing this is taken
"Taken"? Does money somehow vanish when you copy something?
Can you allow users to do stupid things and maintain security?
Just throw away their computers entirely. That way there's no way that their stupidity will ruin anything!
I think that trying to ban things for a certain group of people (or at least trying to make them less available in some ways) is quite different than actually making them do something.
well placed concern
Where? I don't think trying to stop children from reading certain books because you don't like their contents counts as "well placed concern."
I don't see why not. They're just books with words in them.
If there's a permit process in place the government can mitigate these problems
It also potentially stops completely valid protests. I'm sorry, but I think you'll just have to deal with the occasional "bad" protest. I refuse to accept a law that hurts valid ones.
These are municipal ordinances which certainly would be outside of what a state or the Federal government can allow or disallow.
In that case, the government need only overlook it.
First, (and most importantly), the word PEACEABLY that you keep ignoring in your responses, but which is present in language of the amendment does open the language of the amendment to the interpretation that the government has a right to take measure to keep the peace even if it precludes free assembly.
I didn't ignore it. I just don't understand how it opens it up to that. It doesn't explicitly mention anything like that. It could just mean that the government can't enact any laws to prevent peaceful protests. But this permit law is affecting both peaceful and non-peaceful protests. That's what I thought, anyway.
It does NOT dictate that the same is true of municipalities.
I see. So it has not been interpreted that way yet, then? That seems rather disadvantageous for the people, in my opinion (as even speech that is widely regarded as "good" could be limited, if I understand correctly).
In any case, I definitely do not agree with any such laws (even though that won't by itself make the laws vanish).
only that it was something they needed to do.
Not really.
you can try to hide completely from the world outside and be forever alone.
Exactly.
If a gathering is too large (and in a tight place that's not all that many people) police wouldn't be able to make it through to restore the peace if something were to break out.
That's simply too bad. I don't think they should attack peaceful protesters because of that. As for your analogy, I disagree with that practice as well. "Recommended occupancy," maybe. But not enforced.
City government can insist on that distinction since it is charged with keeping the peace.
I don't recall them having the power to override the constitution in the name of "keeping the peace."
I don't think anyone argued for police harming honest peaceful protesters.
That's not what I meant. I meant the act of requiring permits is what is harmful.
it can require a permit in order to ensure that it is able to keep the peace during the protest.
Where does the amendment mention that? If they want to maintain peace and civil order, then they should specifically go after the ones who are being destructive, I would think. I don't think harming honest protests because they want better control over all protests is worth it.
Some protests may turn violent, but that does not mean you need to violate everyone's rights by requiring a permit to protest. You just need to take care of the violent ones when they occur. I'd much rather have the response time be slower than have protest permits.
Well, some may disagree. It is just an opinion, after all (I'm not claiming that you said otherwise).
it is not a censorship issue
I disagree. I'd say that the ones who break the law should be punished. Even if it means that the government can keep better track of protesters, I do not support the permits. I'd rather have some protesters commit illegal acts than make all protesters suffer by requiring permits and putting such powers into the hands of the government.
If looking at the past is any indication
I don't know if you can look to the past to see advanced AI. And not every system has been tested.
Basic human behavior (affected by society or not) is irrelevant when there will be no real way to earn money anyway. What choice will they have?
It's easy to say, "Capitalism is the only thing that will work. Everything else will fail. That includes systems that haven't even been tested." But whether statements such as that are true or not is a completely different matter.
Because doing that will be so easy for everyone.
You'll have to learn to deal with them sometime.
If you're clever and have the right job, you can avoid people almost entirely.
Again, it really depends on the person. Some people would likely do better in the online course.
Some kids hate it. Some kids do poorly. Some people will do better by just going to the college. Some people learn better in different ways. Is this a surprise?