"I think the reasoning is that there is an expectation of privacy"
Is the cemetery a private place owned by the family? If not, a person has every right to be there and spout whatever he/she wishes (but the actual owner of the cemetery can still tell them to leave). Speech should not be censored just because you don't like it. I don't find what this guy did offensive, and just because you do, that does not mean I'm 'wrong'.
"And if you didn't find what he did offensive in the least"
No, I don't. You think it's silly that I don't, right? Well, I think it's silly that you do. What now? Oh, right, your opinion is right and I'm wrong. This guy was totally 'evil' (again, subjective) and his speech should be censored because I don't like it!
You can't decide what I find offensive and what I do not. I don't find what this guy did offensive yet he was still jailed. What, it only matters if the majority agrees? Great. Now if the majority agrees to limit a certain portion of speech because they find it offensive, it will happen.
It is unpopular speech that needs to be protected, not speech that no one finds offensive in the first place.
What does this have to do with anything? How did this harm them? If it didn't do any harm, why is it 'bad'?
You keep talking about 'good' and 'bad', yet you've given no reason as to why piracy is somehow 'wrong'. Oh, and, those words are subjective in the first place.
"There is no problem with completely abstaining"
Why? The artist put a lot of time and effort into that product, and these people have the gall to not buy it or perhaps tell their friends (who were originally going to buy it) not to! They deserve the money!
"as a motive to create further work"
Sounds like it is our illogical capitalistic society that is hurting them to me. Worthless paper should not be incentive.
"They made a product, and expected to be compensated for the time and labor they spent doing it."
Yes, they did. Now why didn't everyone in the world go out and buy it? It doesn't matter whether or not the pirate got it for free. That is irrelevant. They did no harm in doing so, so why is it 'bad'?
"and to cover the time they spent in which they could be doing something more lucrative"
You can't give them time. It's impossible.
"This is VERY different than piracy"
No, it isn't. No one paid for anything, and the only difference is that the pirate got media for free without harming anyone.
"They chose to opt completely out, and that is fine"
Why? I disagree, I think it is wrong. Now what? Are you going to say that your definitions of 'right' and 'wrong' are superior to mine?
Yeah, I didn't really mean it bypassed congress, though. What I meant was that if the government can make average people scared (with words like "terrorism" or "piracy"), an unconstitutional law that violates our freedoms actually does have a chance of passing.
"You're doing the same thing you accuse of others"
Not quite. You'd be surprised at how many people, given the opportunity, wouldn't attempt to overthrow the government to end their corruption. They believe that voting for a new Republican or Democrat over and over will solve everything and that the economy is the most important thing ever, not freedom.
What? Alright, pirates aren't getting constantly abused or anything severe like that. In the eyes of the brainwashed general public, they are merely thieves. To them, no injustice is being done to them when they are hit with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. I ask again: what good is calling politicians going to do? Especially if everyone stops pirating media for no reason? That won't change their mind. A normal brainwashed individual would think nothing more than "oh, they finally stopped stealing from artists." They aren't going to magically change their mind about piracy because everyone stops. In fact, stopping may make them appear even worse. Why stop if what they are doing causes no harm?
"ethical people seen as fighting for a moral cause that benefits us all because it is just?"
Believe me, hardly anyone believes this now, and they certainly won't in the future if this trend continues. They will soon see just how evil the entertainment industry is if they haven't already. Trying to persuade paid politicians who are already proclaiming that piracy is equal to that of robbing a store is not going to work, period.
"I don't believe anything will change so I don't care if I'm seen as thief."
The only thing that will cure this problem is education. If everyone knows why piracy doesn't hurt anyone, then it won't be a problem. I've explained why this is to many, many people. I hope others will do the same.
"our opponents are unethical so we are going to lower ourselves to their level"
I didn't lower myself to their level. I didn't lower myself at all.
"The entire point of civil disobedience to garner support from the public."
Not when you have an entire line of politicians paid to make sure that doesn't happen. Besides that, it's nearly impossible to find out if someone is a pirate or not. It is unlikely that someone will walk up to you and say "Wow, look, a pirate! What a dirty thief!"
"Ethics and justice have nothing to do with your fight."
Sure they do. But your solution is this: "Try to persuade paid off politicians to see the light of day! Stop all piracy until then! That'll work!" That would just be giving them exactly what they want. Our obedience.
Of course they do. People are able to talk and act. Their bodies allow them to do these things. It is their freedom to do them. When someone restricts these freedoms for no good reason (such as speech), what we have is this thing called "censorship."
Who decides what is offensive and what is not? I find it shocking how many people here seem to be against freedom of speech, or at least speech that offends them. In fact, your very post is offensive to me in and of itself. You need to be jailed, and fast!
"denying it happened is to disrespect the dead"
Freedom of speech. The dead can deal with it. Oh, wait, they already have!
"and an attempt to bring about conditions to repeat the atrocity"
Might as well arrest everyone in the world, then. Someone *might* kill another person. Just like this *might* (not a chance) bring about another holocaust!
So, wait. If I continue posting comments that others find offensive on multiple websites... I'll be jailed? Who decides what is offensive and what is not? I certainly don't find what he did offensive in the least. I don't like that other people are deciding this for me.
Oh, but hey. Forget freedom of speech for just a moment! He said mean things to me over the internet! Anyone that posts anything that I find offensive should be jailed immediately!
Yeah, and I'm highly offended that someone would do this! In fact, anyone who posts content that I'm personally offended by should be immediately jailed. Let's begin with you...
"the crime was incredibly anti-social behavior in the form of harassment"
I'm highly offended by someone calling me names over the internet and saying things about dead people! In fact, I'm not just offended by that, but I'm offended by your post in general! I demand that you be arrested for offending me!
What is this? Freedom of speech? Nope! Jail him for trolling on the internet and hurting someones feelings! I'm highly offended that someone is offended by an internet troll, so I demand that those people be jailed because I find it obscene!
No, I'm pretty sure it's the fault of the game developers. I can see where they are coming from, though. Things like splitscreen support usually aren't added to PC games due to the fact that once you already have multiplayer in the game, it's far easier to rely on that than to code in splitscreen support (which not many people will probably use anyway). Not to mention that I suppose it's kind of awkward doing that on a PC, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
"freedom of speech is not absolute"
That doesn't make it right, now does it?
"I think the reasoning is that there is an expectation of privacy"
Is the cemetery a private place owned by the family? If not, a person has every right to be there and spout whatever he/she wishes (but the actual owner of the cemetery can still tell them to leave). Speech should not be censored just because you don't like it. I don't find what this guy did offensive, and just because you do, that does not mean I'm 'wrong'.
"And if you didn't find what he did offensive in the least"
No, I don't. You think it's silly that I don't, right? Well, I think it's silly that you do. What now? Oh, right, your opinion is right and I'm wrong. This guy was totally 'evil' (again, subjective) and his speech should be censored because I don't like it!
"If it can be shown that his intent was to cause harm and make someone upset"
You don't get it. It's speech, whether or not people find it offensive, it needs to be protected.
Later: government bans all unpopular speech because idiots didn't stand up for their rights when they had the chance.
"Because it wasn't grossly enough."
You can't decide what I find offensive and what I do not. I don't find what this guy did offensive yet he was still jailed. What, it only matters if the majority agrees? Great. Now if the majority agrees to limit a certain portion of speech because they find it offensive, it will happen.
It is unpopular speech that needs to be protected, not speech that no one finds offensive in the first place.
Right. If they agree with my decision, clearly I'm right! Authority figures and the majority are always right!
"the pirate gets to use it"
What does this have to do with anything? How did this harm them? If it didn't do any harm, why is it 'bad'?
You keep talking about 'good' and 'bad', yet you've given no reason as to why piracy is somehow 'wrong'. Oh, and, those words are subjective in the first place.
"There is no problem with completely abstaining"
Why? The artist put a lot of time and effort into that product, and these people have the gall to not buy it or perhaps tell their friends (who were originally going to buy it) not to! They deserve the money!
"as a motive to create further work"
Sounds like it is our illogical capitalistic society that is hurting them to me. Worthless paper should not be incentive.
"They made a product, and expected to be compensated for the time and labor they spent doing it."
Yes, they did. Now why didn't everyone in the world go out and buy it? It doesn't matter whether or not the pirate got it for free. That is irrelevant. They did no harm in doing so, so why is it 'bad'?
"and to cover the time they spent in which they could be doing something more lucrative"
You can't give them time. It's impossible.
"This is VERY different than piracy"
No, it isn't. No one paid for anything, and the only difference is that the pirate got media for free without harming anyone.
"They chose to opt completely out, and that is fine"
Why? I disagree, I think it is wrong. Now what? Are you going to say that your definitions of 'right' and 'wrong' are superior to mine?
Yeah, I didn't really mean it bypassed congress, though. What I meant was that if the government can make average people scared (with words like "terrorism" or "piracy"), an unconstitutional law that violates our freedoms actually does have a chance of passing.
"You're doing the same thing you accuse of others"
Not quite. You'd be surprised at how many people, given the opportunity, wouldn't attempt to overthrow the government to end their corruption. They believe that voting for a new Republican or Democrat over and over will solve everything and that the economy is the most important thing ever, not freedom.
What? Alright, pirates aren't getting constantly abused or anything severe like that. In the eyes of the brainwashed general public, they are merely thieves. To them, no injustice is being done to them when they are hit with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. I ask again: what good is calling politicians going to do? Especially if everyone stops pirating media for no reason? That won't change their mind. A normal brainwashed individual would think nothing more than "oh, they finally stopped stealing from artists." They aren't going to magically change their mind about piracy because everyone stops. In fact, stopping may make them appear even worse. Why stop if what they are doing causes no harm?
"Do you know "Most Americans""
Since they haven't completely overthrown their government yet, yes. I feel I do know them.
"Everybody is at all times doing what they view to be in their own self interest."
Except if they aren't.
Not if they actually want to help out of the kindness of their hearts. That might sound far fetched, but such people actually do exist.
"ethical people seen as fighting for a moral cause that benefits us all because it is just?"
Believe me, hardly anyone believes this now, and they certainly won't in the future if this trend continues. They will soon see just how evil the entertainment industry is if they haven't already. Trying to persuade paid politicians who are already proclaiming that piracy is equal to that of robbing a store is not going to work, period.
"I don't believe anything will change so I don't care if I'm seen as thief."
The only thing that will cure this problem is education. If everyone knows why piracy doesn't hurt anyone, then it won't be a problem. I've explained why this is to many, many people. I hope others will do the same.
"our opponents are unethical so we are going to lower ourselves to their level"
I didn't lower myself to their level. I didn't lower myself at all.
"The entire point of civil disobedience to garner support from the public."
Not when you have an entire line of politicians paid to make sure that doesn't happen. Besides that, it's nearly impossible to find out if someone is a pirate or not. It is unlikely that someone will walk up to you and say "Wow, look, a pirate! What a dirty thief!"
"Ethics and justice have nothing to do with your fight."
Sure they do. But your solution is this: "Try to persuade paid off politicians to see the light of day! Stop all piracy until then! That'll work!" That would just be giving them exactly what they want. Our obedience.
That's the "if it isn't broke, don't fix it" mindset for you. Nothing ever improves.
Of course they do. People are able to talk and act. Their bodies allow them to do these things. It is their freedom to do them. When someone restricts these freedoms for no good reason (such as speech), what we have is this thing called "censorship."
"Not harassment?"
Who decides what is offensive and what is not? I find it shocking how many people here seem to be against freedom of speech, or at least speech that offends them. In fact, your very post is offensive to me in and of itself. You need to be jailed, and fast!
"denying it happened is to disrespect the dead"
Freedom of speech. The dead can deal with it. Oh, wait, they already have!
"and an attempt to bring about conditions to repeat the atrocity"
Might as well arrest everyone in the world, then. Someone *might* kill another person. Just like this *might* (not a chance) bring about another holocaust!
"He was, in effect, harassing them."
So, wait. If I continue posting comments that others find offensive on multiple websites... I'll be jailed? Who decides what is offensive and what is not? I certainly don't find what he did offensive in the least. I don't like that other people are deciding this for me.
"Except that in the UK there is no right to "free speech""
Everyone has a right to free speech, regardless of whether or not a corrupt government wants them to.
"It's not like the US has unrestricted free speech either"
That doesn't make it right.
"a message which is indecent or grossly offensive"
I'm offended by your comment! Why haven't you been jailed!?
Oh, but hey. Forget freedom of speech for just a moment! He said mean things to me over the internet! Anyone that posts anything that I find offensive should be jailed immediately!
Yeah, and I'm highly offended that someone would do this! In fact, anyone who posts content that I'm personally offended by should be immediately jailed. Let's begin with you...
"the crime was incredibly anti-social behavior in the form of harassment"
I'm highly offended by someone calling me names over the internet and saying things about dead people! In fact, I'm not just offended by that, but I'm offended by your post in general! I demand that you be arrested for offending me!
What is this? Freedom of speech? Nope! Jail him for trolling on the internet and hurting someones feelings! I'm highly offended that someone is offended by an internet troll, so I demand that those people be jailed because I find it obscene!
No, I'm pretty sure it's the fault of the game developers. I can see where they are coming from, though. Things like splitscreen support usually aren't added to PC games due to the fact that once you already have multiplayer in the game, it's far easier to rely on that than to code in splitscreen support (which not many people will probably use anyway). Not to mention that I suppose it's kind of awkward doing that on a PC, anyway.