There is no difference in expression of your ideas if you put it on a license plate or on a bumper sticker.
But they're still restricting you from placing it on the license plate. I don't see why the government should be able to do this.
Yes, technically, they're not restricting your expression itself. However, that's not really my point. The point is that they're attempting to control what you can put on the license plate even when it's possible to personalize them, and that they're doing it for a reason I believe is utterly absurd. And again, this is the government (paid for by taxes), not some random corporation. They force you to get a license plate to begin with, so I definitely don't see why they should get to decide what is and is not 'offensive'.
The whole reason why "free speech zones" are bad (and why they're created) is because they are intended to actually restrict your expression of your ideas, generally by changing the audience you can reach.
But you're right that it might change the audience you have access to. That's another difference.
Because you still have the right to paste whatever expression you want on your car.
But not on the license plate. And that's the point: the fact that you have other avenues to express yourself doesn't mean you're not being restricted. For free speech zones, you must go to the free speech zones, and for the license plate issue, you must find another way to express the same thing on your car.
Note that so-called "free speech zones" have another crucial difference: in this case, you're trying to force the government to provide the forum for your "expression." That alone makes the scenarios completely dissimilar.
But that was not at all the point of my example (recall that I only compared one aspect of one scenario to one aspect of the other). Since this is the government, I do not believe it should be allowed to forbid only certain messages on license plates that they deem 'bad'.
Sure it is. You can't express it on a license plate.
Using this logic (the part where it isn't a suppression of speech as long as you're technically still able to express that speech is some way), free speech zones are a-okay. After all, you can express anything you want. Just... do it over there!
At least in one way, speech/expression is being suppressed in an effort to keep certain people from being offended.
How is that not irrelevant? You might not think it's a violation of the first amendment, but are you saying that the mere fact that you're capable of expressing the idea in other ways automatically means they're not suppressing your speech/expression? If so, I can think of a number of things they could do; what a huge loophole.
You probably weren't saying that, but in that case, why say it's irrelevant? I'm not sure it's a first amendment violation, but I consider it as suppressing speech/expression.
That is completely unaffected by whether or not the government is forced to provide you with a piece of metal with your favorite "offensive" acronym on it.
But that same government forces you to have that piece of metal, and that same government allows other people to have similar pieces of metal as long as they deem it unoffensive. Regardless of the first amendment, I believe such ambiguous, subjective decisions made by the government are wrong.
You may not be visible to the customer, but you are visible to your coworkers, and they deserve your respect.
But it's subjective. The fact that you don't like someone's clothes doesn't mean that the clothes are objectively bad or ugly. I never really understood this silly, superficial fixation on clothing, but I guess many people are petty, so it's not too surprising.
Looks more like a straw man to me. I didn't see the guy say that we should totally get rid of the government, and yet he used such an example. I can see why the other person thought he was saying that because the situation could be worse, the situation isn't bad at all.
A better analogy:
I fail to see how that analogy is relevant to what Khallow said.
We are social creatures and nothing replaces actually being with people.
I have my own preferences, though. And the level of social interaction that people prefer varies from person to person.
I don't know what you mean by "actually being with people," though. If you mean physically being with other people, then I can think of a lot of things that could replace that for me.
Actually, I said... "when all you're doing is throwing/hitting balls around on a field." That's not fun to me at all, so I couldn't care less about any human interaction that comes with it.
except the richness of human interaction there is irreplaceable
The only problem is that sports are, to me, incredibly boring. I couldn't care less about any "richness of human interaction" when all you're doing is throwing/hitting balls around on a field.
No, it doesn't. I never mentioned anything about Swartz. All it implies is that certain innocent people might be taking plea bargains, and the system completely allows for this.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no difference in expression of your ideas if you put it on a license plate or on a bumper sticker.
But they're still restricting you from placing it on the license plate. I don't see why the government should be able to do this.
Yes, technically, they're not restricting your expression itself. However, that's not really my point. The point is that they're attempting to control what you can put on the license plate even when it's possible to personalize them, and that they're doing it for a reason I believe is utterly absurd. And again, this is the government (paid for by taxes), not some random corporation. They force you to get a license plate to begin with, so I definitely don't see why they should get to decide what is and is not 'offensive'.
The whole reason why "free speech zones" are bad (and why they're created) is because they are intended to actually restrict your expression of your ideas, generally by changing the audience you can reach.
But you're right that it might change the audience you have access to. That's another difference.
Because you still have the right to paste whatever expression you want on your car.
But not on the license plate. And that's the point: the fact that you have other avenues to express yourself doesn't mean you're not being restricted. For free speech zones, you must go to the free speech zones, and for the license plate issue, you must find another way to express the same thing on your car.
Note that so-called "free speech zones" have another crucial difference: in this case, you're trying to force the government to provide the forum for your "expression." That alone makes the scenarios completely dissimilar.
But that was not at all the point of my example (recall that I only compared one aspect of one scenario to one aspect of the other). Since this is the government, I do not believe it should be allowed to forbid only certain messages on license plates that they deem 'bad'.
Sure it is. You can't express it on a license plate.
Using this logic (the part where it isn't a suppression of speech as long as you're technically still able to express that speech is some way), free speech zones are a-okay. After all, you can express anything you want. Just... do it over there!
At least in one way, speech/expression is being suppressed in an effort to keep certain people from being offended.
And? He could have at least tried making a stand.
No. It really isn't.
How is that not irrelevant? You might not think it's a violation of the first amendment, but are you saying that the mere fact that you're capable of expressing the idea in other ways automatically means they're not suppressing your speech/expression? If so, I can think of a number of things they could do; what a huge loophole.
You probably weren't saying that, but in that case, why say it's irrelevant? I'm not sure it's a first amendment violation, but I consider it as suppressing speech/expression.
That is completely unaffected by whether or not the government is forced to provide you with a piece of metal with your favorite "offensive" acronym on it.
But that same government forces you to have that piece of metal, and that same government allows other people to have similar pieces of metal as long as they deem it unoffensive. Regardless of the first amendment, I believe such ambiguous, subjective decisions made by the government are wrong.
That's like how we haven't had another 9/11 since the first one! The TSA must be working! There can't possibly be other reasons!
If you really must paste "ROFLMAO" on your car, you can always put it on a bumper sticker.
But they're restricting your ability to place it on the license plate. The fact that you can express the same thing in other ways is irrelevant.
False dilemma. Just allow the plates.
You may not be visible to the customer, but you are visible to your coworkers, and they deserve your respect.
But it's subjective. The fact that you don't like someone's clothes doesn't mean that the clothes are objectively bad or ugly. I never really understood this silly, superficial fixation on clothing, but I guess many people are petty, so it's not too surprising.
I still fail to see why they should be allowed to prevent you from having such license plates.
It is protected by the first amendment. However, certain courts have 'interpreted' imaginary exceptions into the first amendment.
Except it's a valid point.
Looks more like a straw man to me. I didn't see the guy say that we should totally get rid of the government, and yet he used such an example. I can see why the other person thought he was saying that because the situation could be worse, the situation isn't bad at all.
A better analogy:
I fail to see how that analogy is relevant to what Khallow said.
That's a shame, as being with other people is without doubt richer than any form of online socialising
That sounds subjective.
But is because you are never experiencing the richness I am talking about, and that is a shame.
If you don't like what I like, it's because you haven't tried hard enough to do so, not because you actually like different things than me.
Why? Sounded like a decent plan to me...
We are social creatures and nothing replaces actually being with people.
I have my own preferences, though. And the level of social interaction that people prefer varies from person to person.
I don't know what you mean by "actually being with people," though. If you mean physically being with other people, then I can think of a lot of things that could replace that for me.
Why would a sport involve a ball or a field?
Not always, but many of the more popular ones do. Then again, it depends on what you were talking about.
Actually, I said... "when all you're doing is throwing/hitting balls around on a field." That's not fun to me at all, so I couldn't care less about any human interaction that comes with it.
Why is that odd? I have my own interests. If you think there is something odd about that, I can only assume you're a robot.
except the richness of human interaction there is irreplaceable
The only problem is that sports are, to me, incredibly boring. I couldn't care less about any "richness of human interaction" when all you're doing is throwing/hitting balls around on a field.
That implies that Swartz was innocent
No, it doesn't. I never mentioned anything about Swartz. All it implies is that certain innocent people might be taking plea bargains, and the system completely allows for this.
which he obviously was not.
As far as I know, he was never convicted.
Do you really want every minor infraction that would put someone away for less than a year to have to go to court?
If it means that innocent people stop being punished by the 'justice' system? Absolutely.
Given the fact that I quoted the third sentence, the first possibility you listed seems doubtful.
or do you not know sarcasm when you see it?
It's sometimes difficult. I've seen people say some things that I believed were extremely absurd, and they were completely serious.
Most of us don't even bother with HDDs or SSDs - just DVDs.
Most of who? I somewhat doubt that.
I think the problem is that any answer they come up with that disagrees with your own will be considered "bullshit".
But the fact that they got someone from the TSA to respond to a petition stating that we should disband the TSA is rather disturbing.
Especially the one about the TSA. They didn't even try to make it seem as if they actually care in that case.