Porn isn't speech, bit torrent downloads aren't speech, and cybersex isn't speech.
Is your comment speech? Data isn't, apparently. Some of those are more so expression than speech.
Speech was originally intended to protect political and social commentary.
I'd say a government that protects political speech but freely bans everything else is not only a government that is not for the people, but one that people should actively oppose.
Porn, piracy and cybersex are not.
You don't get to decide that by yourself.
We can survive just fine without them.
We can survive just fine without a lot of things. Your comment, for example. Hell, we could survive without political speech being practically unrestricted!
However, I think we need to stop worrying about what they do in other countries.
If I see something that I believe is a government abuse of power, I'm certainly not going to think it's okay just because another government is the one doing it.
We have no proof that legal porn/cybersex leads to a better way of life.
It doesn't matter to me if they do or don't.
We also have zero proof that banning it leads to banning of actual speech
Who cares whether it does or doesn't? The point is that people think banning it is bad by itself.
Unfortunately these debates always become so emotional that soon it's children screaming at anyone who endorses anything but "do whatever you want, wherever and whenever, without consequences."
"Oh there are people that call themselves poor, but compare them to a non-first-world country and see how rich they actually are."
I can't see what else you're implying. You say that there are people who call themselves poor (as if you're skeptical that it's true) and then say that they should be compared to people in non-first-world countries to see how 'rich' they are.
I honestly can't see how my comment isn't relevant. It doesn't matter what the bar is in the rest of the world, and you didn't say anything about them simply being different, but instead called them 'rich.' I don't believe my comment was unreasonable to think that's what you meant.
...or their staffs knew half as much about technology as the average teenager.
Then they wouldn't even be able to access their Facebook accounts. Most teenagers hardly seem to be computer literate (not to any degree I'd consider impressive, anyway). They're likely better than these congressman, but not by much.
I don't believe you have a right to take away everyone's constitutional rights just because you want to feel safe.
When your "free speech" puts me (or even yourself) in danger you need to flip that > to.
The the very reason why many people oppose the TSA and Patriot Act is because it trades our privacy for (supposed) safety. Even if they kept us safe, I believe they are unacceptable because I think everyone's freedoms trump your 'right' to be safe from unlikely threats. Same with free speech.
Furthermore, with free speech zones, you're only talking about potential threats. Anyone who says something the president disagrees with is put elsewhere where they can't be seen or heard under the guise of keeping the peace. In reality, this is mere security theater.
There are countless valid constitutional arguments
I don't care what the supreme court says or does. No, that's not quite right. They can be wrong, and an example of that was when they allowed war protestors to be arrested due to the "fire in a crowded theater" ruling (later overturned, I believe). I believe very strongly in certain freedoms, and citing supreme court cases isn't going to change that. If that's all you've got to say, you might as well try to convince me that the TSA is a good thing; it'll be about as effective.
Further, Your "free speech" doesn't entitle you to live free on public land forcing the local tax payer to pay for your sanitation and protection and repairs for all damages done (both by squatting and out right vandalism).
You're too fixated on occupy wall street, I think. Free speech zones have been used for much more than that.
"Free speech" doesn't mean you can block traffic or block doors. "Free speech" doesn't mean you live rent free in a tent on public land. I'd bet cold hard cash that if me and 30 of my friends desided to protest your trampling of OUR rights by setting up a camp on your front lawn you'd have the cops on us before we got the first tent set up.
I'm done talking about Occupy. It's completely uninteresting to me and not at all the point I was making about free speech zones in general (which you apparently think are okay).
Oh. And I thought you ALSO made a point that those in "fear" of "unlikely senerios" where people get "hurt" and limiting freedoms based on their "paranoia". My mistake.
Which was referring to free speech zones.
We can limit crowds because of dangers.
Free speech > safety, in my books. Do you support the TSA? What about the USAPATRIOT Act? What if they weren't mere security theater?
Firedoors are a prime example.
Fire doors don't violate anything I believe is a fundamental freedom. Free speech zones do.
I further included links which illustrate where disease and crime were very real at the various "occupy" camps.
It's funny how the only people that don't think touch typing is a benefit are those that cannot touch type.
How do you know this? Have you personally interviewed every touch typist? Furthermore, it's not necessarily that people don't think it's beneficial; it could be that they don't think it brings with it a substantial enough benefit to put it in such high regard.
Of course not, but that does not justify the right to take it.
Subjective.
A CEO might feel you are a greedy bastard for not be willing to work the wage of a Chinese man or Indian doing the same job overseas? Does that give him a right to take your money away?
The CEO has wasted your time and made you put effort into a job. Copyright infringers do not waste the artists' time (they only reap the rewards of what is produced after it is made, but the time and effort the artist spent making the products cannot be return, and their choice had nothing to do with the copyright infringers).
Of course. That's the difference I was pointing out.
Oh wait, I see. You wanted to have the game without paying for it.
The topic was about lending other people (such as friends) games. Someone mentioned demos as an alternative solution, so I felt the need to point out the difference. This has nothing to do with my own desires.
Demos are limited (naturally). Someone might feel more comfortable buying the game after they've played a significant portion of it, or maybe they won't ever buy it at all and simply play the game they borrowed to the end. Who knows? The point being that demos are not such a good solution for everyone.
You may consider lack of copyright protection 'better'
And that's what I thought your second option was talking about: a lack of copyright protection. If we discarded DMCA takedown notices, that wouldn't mean we'd have no way to enforce copyright. Or at least, that's what I was thinking at the time.
I have no doubt that other people will still buy the console and make excuses for the company (saying, "it's to stop piracy" or "used sales hurt the company"). However, it's not exactly difficult to not buy a game console, so it doesn't really matter. Unlike the situation where bad ISPs have monopolies everywhere in the US, I don't think there's a valid excuse to buy this regardless of what you think of the DRM.
People keep forgetting that the reason people like Steam is because they provide a service in exchange for you giving something up.
Why give up anything? They could easily get rid of the silly DRM and give people all the other features as well. You could choose whether or not the tie the game to Steam.
I'm sure you aren't suggesting that public safety is less important than the ability to say whatever you want where ever you want to say it and with any number of people.
I would. Who is the paranoid one here? The ones who are scared that unlikely scenarios where people are hurt will arise, or the ones suggesting that the government could easily abuse such powers (and history provides countless examples of government corruption)? Do you also support the Patriot Act? Warrantless wiretapping? The TSA? It's all for your safety, and surely an 'upstanding' citizen such as yourself wouldn't dare to suggest that petty things such as rights are more important than public safety?
I won't say anything about the rest of it, but I do think what you said there is completely ridiculous.
Random conversations regarding ethics, with atheists.
Can't argue with that hard data. I wish that would've been made clear from the beginning.
Atheists tend to be Pro Baby Killing, because they have dehumanized the "fetal tissue", making it much easier to ease their concience regarding killing for the sake of eliminating the consequences of random sex with people they are not committed to.
I doubt it's that they are pro baby killing, but that they value a woman's rights more than the life of an underdeveloped baby (only because you insist) who's still living in said woman's body. Or maybe they are pro baby killing. How am I to know who you were arguing with?
My question to them, which I have yet to have answered, "What makes your ethics better than mine that you feel that you can impose your ethics upon me, while rejecting the idea that I can impose mine on you?"
Somehow that sounds like a straw man to begin with. Do they really believe that their ethics are better than yours? Well, I guess I wasn't present in your little arguments, so I don't know.
I've had random arguments with theists before. They were pompous imbeciles without a shred of intelligence (evidently because they said things I disagreed with). Therefore, theists tend to be that way. I'm sure that some atheists are idiots, but isn't that true of every group?
Slashdot Mirror
This however is a unique piece of property.
The imaginary kind?
Porn isn't speech, bit torrent downloads aren't speech, and cybersex isn't speech.
Is your comment speech? Data isn't, apparently. Some of those are more so expression than speech.
Speech was originally intended to protect political and social commentary.
I'd say a government that protects political speech but freely bans everything else is not only a government that is not for the people, but one that people should actively oppose.
Porn, piracy and cybersex are not.
You don't get to decide that by yourself.
We can survive just fine without them.
We can survive just fine without a lot of things. Your comment, for example. Hell, we could survive without political speech being practically unrestricted!
However, I think we need to stop worrying about what they do in other countries.
If I see something that I believe is a government abuse of power, I'm certainly not going to think it's okay just because another government is the one doing it.
We have no proof that legal porn/cybersex leads to a better way of life.
It doesn't matter to me if they do or don't.
We also have zero proof that banning it leads to banning of actual speech
Who cares whether it does or doesn't? The point is that people think banning it is bad by itself.
Unfortunately these debates always become so emotional that soon it's children screaming at anyone who endorses anything but "do whatever you want, wherever and whenever, without consequences."
That seems to be a straw man.
"Oh there are people that call themselves poor, but compare them to a non-first-world country and see how rich they actually are."
I can't see what else you're implying. You say that there are people who call themselves poor (as if you're skeptical that it's true) and then say that they should be compared to people in non-first-world countries to see how 'rich' they are.
I honestly can't see how my comment isn't relevant. It doesn't matter what the bar is in the rest of the world, and you didn't say anything about them simply being different, but instead called them 'rich.' I don't believe my comment was unreasonable to think that's what you meant.
It sucks, but it is what it is.
I don't think that's a very good attitude. Their goals on not realistic to begin with.
There are much more important things in life.
Such as... having children when you don't want them? What is and is not important is subjective to begin with.
And I quite frankly don't see the sense in not leaving a legacy.
You're dead and you don't even get to see it. I guess it can sound interesting while you're alive, but I personally don't see the point.
...or their staffs knew half as much about technology as the average teenager.
Then they wouldn't even be able to access their Facebook accounts. Most teenagers hardly seem to be computer literate (not to any degree I'd consider impressive, anyway). They're likely better than these congressman, but not by much.
Your "free speech" does not trump my rights.
I don't believe you have a right to take away everyone's constitutional rights just because you want to feel safe.
When your "free speech" puts me (or even yourself) in danger you need to flip that > to .
The the very reason why many people oppose the TSA and Patriot Act is because it trades our privacy for (supposed) safety. Even if they kept us safe, I believe they are unacceptable because I think everyone's freedoms trump your 'right' to be safe from unlikely threats. Same with free speech.
Furthermore, with free speech zones, you're only talking about potential threats. Anyone who says something the president disagrees with is put elsewhere where they can't be seen or heard under the guise of keeping the peace. In reality, this is mere security theater.
There are countless valid constitutional arguments
I don't care what the supreme court says or does. No, that's not quite right. They can be wrong, and an example of that was when they allowed war protestors to be arrested due to the "fire in a crowded theater" ruling (later overturned, I believe). I believe very strongly in certain freedoms, and citing supreme court cases isn't going to change that. If that's all you've got to say, you might as well try to convince me that the TSA is a good thing; it'll be about as effective.
Further, Your "free speech" doesn't entitle you to live free on public land forcing the local tax payer to pay for your sanitation and protection and repairs for all damages done (both by squatting and out right vandalism).
You're too fixated on occupy wall street, I think. Free speech zones have been used for much more than that.
"Free speech" doesn't mean you can block traffic or block doors. "Free speech" doesn't mean you live rent free in a tent on public land. I'd bet cold hard cash that if me and 30 of my friends desided to protest your trampling of OUR rights by setting up a camp on your front lawn you'd have the cops on us before we got the first tent set up.
I'm done talking about Occupy. It's completely uninteresting to me and not at all the point I was making about free speech zones in general (which you apparently think are okay).
Oh. And I thought you ALSO made a point that those in "fear" of "unlikely senerios" where people get "hurt" and limiting freedoms based on their "paranoia". My mistake.
Which was referring to free speech zones.
We can limit crowds because of dangers.
Free speech > safety, in my books. Do you support the TSA? What about the USAPATRIOT Act? What if they weren't mere security theater?
Firedoors are a prime example.
Fire doors don't violate anything I believe is a fundamental freedom. Free speech zones do.
I further included links which illustrate where disease and crime were very real at the various "occupy" camps.
That's just punishing everyone.
It's funny how the only people that don't think touch typing is a benefit are those that cannot touch type.
How do you know this? Have you personally interviewed every touch typist? Furthermore, it's not necessarily that people don't think it's beneficial; it could be that they don't think it brings with it a substantial enough benefit to put it in such high regard.
Are we really having people graduate from high school without knowing how to type?
There's more than one way to type.
Which part art you replying to?
Of course not, but that does not justify the right to take it.
Subjective.
A CEO might feel you are a greedy bastard for not be willing to work the wage of a Chinese man or Indian doing the same job overseas? Does that give him a right to take your money away?
The CEO has wasted your time and made you put effort into a job. Copyright infringers do not waste the artists' time (they only reap the rewards of what is produced after it is made, but the time and effort the artist spent making the products cannot be return, and their choice had nothing to do with the copyright infringers).
But ascribing idiocy to the whole group (which I have not) is always wrong.
"tends to be" made it sound like that's the norm to me. I just wanted to know why you thought that, but that's fine.
Maybe by receiving some sort of notification that they are infringing, and if they ignore it they are liable for copyright infringement in court?
If it can be proved in court that they probably knew that people were infringing and/or that they were directly involved in the process.
Or, the other option I already presented, was that each and every case winds up in court
Again, no. The court could order certain content be removed. That doesn't mean websites have to be held liable for everything.
(shielded if takedowns are done)
That could still be done.
Unlikely? Why do we have firedoor rules in various building codes?
How is that relevant to my comment? I mentioned free speech zones. That's all.
And as far as "free speech zones" and disease/crime:
Free speech zones were used to put people who would criticize the president away from public eye. If you're for that, then you're anti-free speech.
I said nothing about Occupy.
Yeah, so? That's the point of a demo.
Of course. That's the difference I was pointing out.
Oh wait, I see. You wanted to have the game without paying for it.
The topic was about lending other people (such as friends) games. Someone mentioned demos as an alternative solution, so I felt the need to point out the difference. This has nothing to do with my own desires.
Demos are limited (naturally). Someone might feel more comfortable buying the game after they've played a significant portion of it, or maybe they won't ever buy it at all and simply play the game they borrowed to the end. Who knows? The point being that demos are not such a good solution for everyone.
If we discard DMCA takedown notices, what do we have left?
Courts. If the hosts intentionally and knowingly violate copyright, presumably the courts could take care of it.
You may consider lack of copyright protection 'better'
And that's what I thought your second option was talking about: a lack of copyright protection. If we discarded DMCA takedown notices, that wouldn't mean we'd have no way to enforce copyright. Or at least, that's what I was thinking at the time.
I have no doubt that other people will still buy the console and make excuses for the company (saying, "it's to stop piracy" or "used sales hurt the company"). However, it's not exactly difficult to not buy a game console, so it doesn't really matter. Unlike the situation where bad ISPs have monopolies everywhere in the US, I don't think there's a valid excuse to buy this regardless of what you think of the DRM.
People keep forgetting that the reason people like Steam is because they provide a service in exchange for you giving something up.
Why give up anything? They could easily get rid of the silly DRM and give people all the other features as well. You could choose whether or not the tie the game to Steam.
I think their beef should be with DRM. Demos only allow you play up to a certain point.
I'm sure you aren't suggesting that public safety is less important than the ability to say whatever you want where ever you want to say it and with any number of people.
I would. Who is the paranoid one here? The ones who are scared that unlikely scenarios where people are hurt will arise, or the ones suggesting that the government could easily abuse such powers (and history provides countless examples of government corruption)? Do you also support the Patriot Act? Warrantless wiretapping? The TSA? It's all for your safety, and surely an 'upstanding' citizen such as yourself wouldn't dare to suggest that petty things such as rights are more important than public safety?
I won't say anything about the rest of it, but I do think what you said there is completely ridiculous.
Random conversations regarding ethics, with atheists.
Can't argue with that hard data. I wish that would've been made clear from the beginning.
Atheists tend to be Pro Baby Killing, because they have dehumanized the "fetal tissue", making it much easier to ease their concience regarding killing for the sake of eliminating the consequences of random sex with people they are not committed to.
I doubt it's that they are pro baby killing, but that they value a woman's rights more than the life of an underdeveloped baby (only because you insist) who's still living in said woman's body. Or maybe they are pro baby killing. How am I to know who you were arguing with?
My question to them, which I have yet to have answered, "What makes your ethics better than mine that you feel that you can impose your ethics upon me, while rejecting the idea that I can impose mine on you?"
Somehow that sounds like a straw man to begin with. Do they really believe that their ethics are better than yours? Well, I guess I wasn't present in your little arguments, so I don't know.
I've had random arguments with theists before. They were pompous imbeciles without a shred of intelligence (evidently because they said things I disagreed with). Therefore, theists tend to be that way. I'm sure that some atheists are idiots, but isn't that true of every group?
Hosts honor takedown notices because it is to their benefit.
And that's the important part, isn't it? Yet you say they are "completely free" to disregard DMCA takedowns. How exactly is it to their benefit?
Of course, that means that these hosts will be driven out of business by the inevitable landslide of lawsuits and judgements against them.
Oh, right.
Neither one of those options is in any way realistic or better than the current situation.
I'd say the latter is better, actually. However, there is a third option: get rid of DMCA takedown notices.
Action without consequences are impossible, yet that tends to be the modern Atheist's goal.
Tends to be? Interesting. What would lead you to believe that?