And the Patriot act is the big bad boogie monster that supposedly strips everyone of their constitutional rights even when nobody can actually give an example of what constitutional rights have supposedly been nullified.
Privacy. And examples or not, such legislation must be eliminated.
If you're REALLY worried about it, what the hell are you doing about the wiretap laws in your country? Fic your own fucking country rather than whine about others.
Both issues can be talked about at once. I do not believe anyone is a spineless crybaby for suggesting such a thing. Are you a spineless crybaby for disagreeing with them and then posting about it?
I'm sure they'll try to use that argument. The problem is that if we allow the government to do that kind of thing, they'll just outsource all of their spying to private companies and come and retrieve the data when they want it. Any evidence they obtain without a warrant needs to be tossed out.
It is once someone buys your book, it becomes their property, and they decide to share it with everyone. Well, not according to copyright law, but I don't believe it's the 'pirates' who are removing anyone's choices here.
Oh, but wait, so far all the studies have found that video games do, in fact, increase violent behavior in players.
Where? What, you mean temporarily more aggressive? As far as I know, no studies have shown that video games will cause you to go out and murder people, and crime statistics do not support such a thing at all.
You'd have to be crazy yourself not to think there's a link between actively teaching people to be more violent and an increase in violent behavior.
"You'd have to be crazy to disagree with me!" That's a good argument.
We need to be MORE like these countries, not less.
Why? As I said previously, even if the TSA was effective, I would reject it in its entirely due to the fact that it infringes upon people's freedoms. I would do the same for any legislation seeking to ban guns.
There is a point at which constant aggressive targeted pestering becomes an infringement of someones right to live without being driven mad by someone being a dick to them.
I don't acknowledge that right. The situation you presented seems wildly unlikely; you'd need to sleep, too, so 24/7 isn't possible.
Short of condoning physical violence, how else would you deal with that kind of problem?
Well, they can't enter your private property without your permission, and if they anger any private property owners while they're harassing you, they could be kicked out, as well.
Picketing a funeral is definitely putting a sign on your neighbours lawn.
The people at the funeral own the entire property, sidewalks included? I thought there were past court decisions that said that WBC's actions were legal...
but there is a right to seek compensation for damages, including emotional damages, which are a very real and distinct possibility when you have lost a loved one and someone is claiming they went to hell.
That might be the case, but I personally don't support such a right. Anyone can be offended by anything and claim emotional damages. The government is involved either way.
What an easily exploitable standard that would be. The government (the same one that violates people's rights with the TSA and Patriot Act) would love it!
Why are the people who blindly stampede over others not blamed? Even if it was 'reasonable' to expect the word "the" to cause a stampede, I don't think that'd make it right to punish the speaker. After all, who are the ones who really did the damage?
Slashdot Mirror
I know.
And the Patriot act is the big bad boogie monster that supposedly strips everyone of their constitutional rights even when nobody can actually give an example of what constitutional rights have supposedly been nullified.
Privacy. And examples or not, such legislation must be eliminated.
If you're REALLY worried about it, what the hell are you doing about the wiretap laws in your country? Fic your own fucking country rather than whine about others.
Both issues can be talked about at once. I do not believe anyone is a spineless crybaby for suggesting such a thing. Are you a spineless crybaby for disagreeing with them and then posting about it?
'course you could try to have a jury of your peers convict him for it, but you'll get nowhere.
And the point is... what if he did get somewhere? Since he offended someone, it should be okay to arrest him.
But I guess it's only valid if certain people are offended...
I'm sure they'll try to use that argument. The problem is that if we allow the government to do that kind of thing, they'll just outsource all of their spying to private companies and come and retrieve the data when they want it. Any evidence they obtain without a warrant needs to be tossed out.
if you copy the content from someone else you no longer need to purchase it.
And no one's property is gone. I do not believe that is theft. Period.
Watch this: "It's not theft. Period. It's not theft. Period. It's not theft. Period." There, now you're absolutely defeated!
but it's my choice, not the pirates'.
It is once someone buys your book, it becomes their property, and they decide to share it with everyone. Well, not according to copyright law, but I don't believe it's the 'pirates' who are removing anyone's choices here.
Oh, but wait, so far all the studies have found that video games do, in fact, increase violent behavior in players.
Where? What, you mean temporarily more aggressive? As far as I know, no studies have shown that video games will cause you to go out and murder people, and crime statistics do not support such a thing at all.
You'd have to be crazy yourself not to think there's a link between actively teaching people to be more violent and an increase in violent behavior.
"You'd have to be crazy to disagree with me!" That's a good argument.
then I would be willing to accept restrictions on sales to minors.
Freedom for safety, huh? Didn't we already do that with the TSA and the Patriot Act?
We need to be MORE like these countries, not less.
Why? As I said previously, even if the TSA was effective, I would reject it in its entirely due to the fact that it infringes upon people's freedoms. I would do the same for any legislation seeking to ban guns.
The health risk is far worse.
I'd say the complete loss of some of our rights is far worse, actually.
There is a point at which constant aggressive targeted pestering becomes an infringement of someones right to live without being driven mad by someone being a dick to them.
I don't acknowledge that right. The situation you presented seems wildly unlikely; you'd need to sleep, too, so 24/7 isn't possible.
Short of condoning physical violence, how else would you deal with that kind of problem?
Well, they can't enter your private property without your permission, and if they anger any private property owners while they're harassing you, they could be kicked out, as well.
At least in the sense that I don't believe there should be such a 'right'.
Actually, harassment [wikipedia.org] is an infringement upon a mourner's rights
Well, I'm going to have to disagree there.
Picketing a funeral is definitely putting a sign on your neighbours lawn.
The people at the funeral own the entire property, sidewalks included? I thought there were past court decisions that said that WBC's actions were legal...
He didn't actually mention verbal abuse. That said, it's not as if that would change my stance.
I read in another comment that you are a father.
You must be mixing me up with someone else.
I don't agree that he's necessarily lacking empathy, but I do agree that it would be pretty difficult to ignore people like that.
Is he truly lacking empathy?
At what point do these things become illegal?
I don't know. I don't think they should be illegal, though.
There are and should always be limits to "Free Speech".
I agree that there are, but I don't agree that there should be.
because speech CAN infringe rights.
And I especially don't see how merely offending someone can infringe upon anyone's rights.
Fucking autistic slashdotters.
Someone isn't autistic just because they disagree with you.
But what are you trying to imply with that comment? That he's wrong because he might believe something else were he in a different situation?
but there is a right to seek compensation for damages, including emotional damages, which are a very real and distinct possibility when you have lost a loved one and someone is claiming they went to hell.
That might be the case, but I personally don't support such a right. Anyone can be offended by anything and claim emotional damages. The government is involved either way.
I said nothing about being offended, so your attempt at a straw man argument fails.
It's good that it was a straw man.
"Freedom of speech" does not include forcing speech upon individuals who do not wish to hear that speech.
Absolutely. And? I don't recall the WBC restraining anyone or any such thing. Everyone is free to not listen.
What an easily exploitable standard that would be. The government (the same one that violates people's rights with the TSA and Patriot Act) would love it!
Freedom of Speech cannot
It can't? It can if the laws say so!
That said, your comment should not be allowed under the banner of free speech; it offends me.
Why are the people who blindly stampede over others not blamed? Even if it was 'reasonable' to expect the word "the" to cause a stampede, I don't think that'd make it right to punish the speaker. After all, who are the ones who really did the damage?