Freedom of speech is only free to us as long as we do not infringe on others rights, and in this case, the Westboro Baptist Idiots have abused their freedom and infringed on other people's rights.
The fact that their speech offends you or others does not mean that they've infringed upon your rights.
After today's tragedies, shouldn't we be talking about ways to stop death, rather than joking about ways to cause it?
Countless people die every single day. If we had to stop having fun and talk about how to prevent death every time someone died, we'd be incapable of doing anything else. But I guess the only people who matter are the ones who are most visible; all the nameless, faceless people in other countries don't matter.
That's what happens when people are so focused on safety: freedoms are infringed upon.That's why we have the TSA (as useless as it is), the Patriot Act, and a host of other nonsense.
And that's irrelevant; gun laws take something away from everyone (including people who don't abuse guns), while the rest just stop you from hurting others.
All of those standards you listed are completely subjective.
More or less, anyway. Any piece of art has the potential to satisfy the "universal" standard; it just depends on how cultures currently react to it and how cultures in different time periods would react to it.
But you cannot take these arbitrary standards and say that they make a piece of art objectively great if it satisfies them. The other four standards vary from person to person, so they're all subjective to begin with. Pretty much what that AC said below my post.
I can parse standard English phrases, but it's difficult to know what you mean if you don't indicate which camp you're in. There are people who talk about innate rights and literally mean that the rights exist no matter what. So this is not "obtuse, willful ignorance" on my part; this is me saying that if you don't want people to make a mistake and think that you're with them, you should probably make it clear that you're not.
Look, any argument that there are "no exceptions" to the right of free speech are demonstrably false.
I did not argue that there were no exceptions; I argued that I do not believe there should be any exceptions.
Which means, you don't have the right to slander and libel others; nor do you have the right to use your free speech in a manner which directly and demonstrably puts others at severe risk of bodily injury or death.
I would if the laws were different, and laws can indeed be written in such a way. You might not like laws like that, but they could certainly exist. But really, the only ones who put others at severe risk of bodily injury or death are those that react to the speech in foolish ways.
but "unrestricted rights" means: anarchy
Interesting, because no one's advocating anarchy. Lack of restrictions on free speech does not alone make anarchy.
Reductio ad absurdam.
I quite like my analogy, thank you.
The government is NOT mandating that you crawl on your hands and knees whenever you want to travel somewhere.
At what point did I say that they were? It was an analogy. The government could command that you do all kinds of things if you wish to travel, and yes, technically, it wouldn't restrict your right to travel, but it wouldn't make any of it a good thing. So unless you were just arguing based on that technicality...
So you address the use of them, and you set reasonable limits on the technology, and its use by government agencies.
But here's the thing: if we're going to make changes to the government, and we don't like the black boxes, we have the option of getting rid of them entirely! If we're going to make change, it might as well be change that we actually like.
Walk into a crowded bar and let people know you only have the right to not be robbed, raped, or beaten if you successfully fight for that right.
Not if the government recognizes that you have those rights. I was talking about when the government doesn't recognize certain rights; when that happens, you can still fight for the rights you believe people should have, but it isn't as if they currently exist.
But what exactly are you saying here? That people in a bar are the sole dictators of what is right and wrong? I don't really understand your logic.
Imagine the end result of both.
Yeah, I don't understand your logic.
Then you'll understand the difference between "might makes rights" and "innate rights" with regard to practicality of actually being able to have those rights protected.
No, it's the same. Either way, you fight for the rights you believe you should have. Unless you misinterpreted me, or I somehow did you, of course...
The act of "driving" is no more a right than the act of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a right.
That's actually an imaginary exception to the first amendment created by a few judges for the purpose of arresting war protestors.
The government is not taking away your "right to travel" by imposing limits on your "privilege to drive your own personally owned motor vehicle."
I'd argue that it is. If the government mandated that you crawl on your hands and knees whenever you wanted to travel somewhere, you could technically still travel, but they'd definitely be limiting you severely.
I mean, the TSA technically doesn't prevent you from traveling, but it's still absolute garbage and an infringement upon our rights.
If you want to win the debate, you will argue the limits and restrictions on what access the government has to the data.
No access at all because I don't think the black boxes should exist.
But then, you knew that already and were just hoping nobody would notice your obvious strawmen, eh fucktard?
I've actually seen people who argue that the rights exist regardless of what any government says, and I'd say that's far from true. There are certainly rights you can believe people should have, and you can even defend them, but that is all. So it's not so far-fetched to ask if someone believes in magic when they talk about 'innate rights'.
Whether you agree with that or not, surely you can see the wisdom in this approach rather than your approach which is "might makes rights."
I actually don't. If you believe you should have a right, then you fight for it. If you win, chances are you'll then have the right, but if you lose, then you won't. That's how it is regardless of whether or not you spout nonsense about inalienable rights.
All that means is that you believe certain rights are important for people to have.
So I take it you support the TSA because terrorists are a potential danger, then? What if they were actually effective? I believe that freedom is far, far more important than security in many, many cases. The government can't be trusted with surveillance powers, either.
I honestly don't know why you people are so terrified; compared to the population in the US, the number of accidents is negligible. Is it so pleasurable to give away your freedom and privacy for (sometimes nonexistent) security?
Slashdot Mirror
Probably the same people who said, "I'll know it when I see it" in regards to obscenity. You know, the ones that support censorship.
They have the right to free speech, just as those holding a funeral have a right to avoid unwanted speech.
I'm not aware of any such right. Surely you have a right to not listen to them, but there is no right to not be offended that I recognize.
If you disagree with that
I'm not required to purposely do anything that could cause me inconvenience just for disagreeing with you.
Freedom of speech is only free to us as long as we do not infringe on others rights, and in this case, the Westboro Baptist Idiots have abused their freedom and infringed on other people's rights.
The fact that their speech offends you or others does not mean that they've infringed upon your rights.
The WBC isn't about their freedom of expression, or freedom of speech-- it's about hate.
You're not about freedom of expression or freedom of speech; you're trying to offend me.
Freedom of speech should not mean freedom of responsibility
Hopefully when you say "responsibility" you're only referring to anonymous and not government intervention.
Sure. If anyone tramples anyone else, guess whose fault it is? The trampler's.
Of course, judges 'interpreted' imaginary exceptions into the first amendment in order to arrest war protestors.
I have a hard time classifying anything you say as informed, insight, or worthy of constitutional protection.
I find that mindset dangerous when someone who seeks to have the government censor others possesses it.
I trust you, Anonymous Coward.
I'm not seeing where he assumed that the poster was female. I'm pretty sure that's just a general way to say that someone seems angry or grumpy.
We can tackle multiple issues at once. That said, I believe the TSA safety mentality is an eyesore anyway.
Looks more like a normal insult to me. There's no indication that the person was intending to insult women at all.
How is that a sexist retort?
After today's tragedies, shouldn't we be talking about ways to stop death, rather than joking about ways to cause it?
Countless people die every single day. If we had to stop having fun and talk about how to prevent death every time someone died, we'd be incapable of doing anything else. But I guess the only people who matter are the ones who are most visible; all the nameless, faceless people in other countries don't matter.
That's what happens when people are so focused on safety: freedoms are infringed upon.That's why we have the TSA (as useless as it is), the Patriot Act, and a host of other nonsense.
5) If having a gun was illegal, you would have an opportunity to know someone was going to kill people when you found them with a gun.
How so?
I don't care if the TSA was effective; security will nearly always be less important to me than freedom.
And that's irrelevant; gun laws take something away from everyone (including people who don't abuse guns), while the rest just stop you from hurting others.
All of those standards you listed are completely subjective.
More or less, anyway. Any piece of art has the potential to satisfy the "universal" standard; it just depends on how cultures currently react to it and how cultures in different time periods would react to it.
But you cannot take these arbitrary standards and say that they make a piece of art objectively great if it satisfies them. The other four standards vary from person to person, so they're all subjective to begin with. Pretty much what that AC said below my post.
I think the qualities I listed are pretty universal concepts, if not self evident.
Did the magical opinion fairy tell you that? All of those standards you listed are completely subjective.
Can you suggest any improvements?
Absolutely. If you're going to claim that something is objective, it would help if you proved that it is objective.
My opinion is that we don't need any 'objective' standards; just view/watch/play/read what you like.
I can parse standard English phrases, but it's difficult to know what you mean if you don't indicate which camp you're in. There are people who talk about innate rights and literally mean that the rights exist no matter what. So this is not "obtuse, willful ignorance" on my part; this is me saying that if you don't want people to make a mistake and think that you're with them, you should probably make it clear that you're not.
Look, any argument that there are "no exceptions" to the right of free speech are demonstrably false.
I did not argue that there were no exceptions; I argued that I do not believe there should be any exceptions.
Which means, you don't have the right to slander and libel others; nor do you have the right to use your free speech in a manner which directly and demonstrably puts others at severe risk of bodily injury or death.
I would if the laws were different, and laws can indeed be written in such a way. You might not like laws like that, but they could certainly exist. But really, the only ones who put others at severe risk of bodily injury or death are those that react to the speech in foolish ways.
but "unrestricted rights" means: anarchy
Interesting, because no one's advocating anarchy. Lack of restrictions on free speech does not alone make anarchy.
Reductio ad absurdam.
I quite like my analogy, thank you.
The government is NOT mandating that you crawl on your hands and knees whenever you want to travel somewhere.
At what point did I say that they were? It was an analogy. The government could command that you do all kinds of things if you wish to travel, and yes, technically, it wouldn't restrict your right to travel, but it wouldn't make any of it a good thing. So unless you were just arguing based on that technicality...
So you address the use of them, and you set reasonable limits on the technology, and its use by government agencies.
But here's the thing: if we're going to make changes to the government, and we don't like the black boxes, we have the option of getting rid of them entirely! If we're going to make change, it might as well be change that we actually like.
Walk into a crowded bar and let people know you only have the right to not be robbed, raped, or beaten if you successfully fight for that right.
Not if the government recognizes that you have those rights. I was talking about when the government doesn't recognize certain rights; when that happens, you can still fight for the rights you believe people should have, but it isn't as if they currently exist.
But what exactly are you saying here? That people in a bar are the sole dictators of what is right and wrong? I don't really understand your logic.
Imagine the end result of both.
Yeah, I don't understand your logic.
Then you'll understand the difference between "might makes rights" and "innate rights" with regard to practicality of actually being able to have those rights protected.
No, it's the same. Either way, you fight for the rights you believe you should have. Unless you misinterpreted me, or I somehow did you, of course...
The act of "driving" is no more a right than the act of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a right.
That's actually an imaginary exception to the first amendment created by a few judges for the purpose of arresting war protestors.
The government is not taking away your "right to travel" by imposing limits on your "privilege to drive your own personally owned motor vehicle."
I'd argue that it is. If the government mandated that you crawl on your hands and knees whenever you wanted to travel somewhere, you could technically still travel, but they'd definitely be limiting you severely.
I mean, the TSA technically doesn't prevent you from traveling, but it's still absolute garbage and an infringement upon our rights.
If you want to win the debate, you will argue the limits and restrictions on what access the government has to the data.
No access at all because I don't think the black boxes should exist.
But then, you knew that already and were just hoping nobody would notice your obvious strawmen, eh fucktard?
I've actually seen people who argue that the rights exist regardless of what any government says, and I'd say that's far from true. There are certainly rights you can believe people should have, and you can even defend them, but that is all. So it's not so far-fetched to ask if someone believes in magic when they talk about 'innate rights'.
Whether you agree with that or not, surely you can see the wisdom in this approach rather than your approach which is "might makes rights."
I actually don't. If you believe you should have a right, then you fight for it. If you win, chances are you'll then have the right, but if you lose, then you won't. That's how it is regardless of whether or not you spout nonsense about inalienable rights.
All that means is that you believe certain rights are important for people to have.
So I take it you support the TSA because terrorists are a potential danger, then? What if they were actually effective? I believe that freedom is far, far more important than security in many, many cases. The government can't be trusted with surveillance powers, either.
I honestly don't know why you people are so terrified; compared to the population in the US, the number of accidents is negligible. Is it so pleasurable to give away your freedom and privacy for (sometimes nonexistent) security?