That lack of respect is what leads to intolerance.
As long as it was just speech, I do not believe they should be arrested for anything. Also, that's just incredibly ambiguous. "Respect" can mean just about anyone. Criticized me? Disrespectful. You disagree with me? Disrespect.
I was simply saying that it's subjective, not that tyranny of the majority doesn't exist.
So far I haven't heard any. Not a single one.
I'm sure someone who thinks it has benefits could tell you. I suspect people who want to falsely scream "fire" in a crowded theater and incite panic are pretty rare, though.
I, for example, agree with slander and libel laws.
I don't.
Personal liberty is harmed when someone is legally entitled to slander you.
I believe it's harmed when someone believes the slander and then takes action against you. I believe they're the ones at fault.
I don't agree with the free speech zones. I don't think they are terribly similar to limited speech prior to elections, because they differ vastly in terms of likely abuses.
"Go somewhere else if you want freedom of speech" doesn't seem too different to me than "wait for a while if you want freedom of speech."
All that matters is safety, though. Especially if you disagree with someone's political speech.
Who decides what is and is not a "benefit"? I might see your hobbies as being completely worthless and detrimental, but that is only my opinion. The fact that you cannot see a benefit does not mean something should be banned.
Maybe it is, but I don't think that's a bad thing at all in this case. I honestly don't see where you're going with this. Are you saying that all laws are self-centered? If so, I don't mind that at all, but I'm free to disagree with whatever I please (or at least I believe I should be able to).
Your right not to be murdered is not universal and absolute.
Never said that it was. Either you're arguing with many different straw men, or I'm seriously misunderstanding you.
And I think you're talking too much about your rights, and not enough about the rights of others.
I don't think so. Of course, I'm not just talking about my rights; I'm speaking of a right I believe everyone should have.
But aren't their desires a bit selfish, anyway? They just want to fulfill their goals! Clearly that's the case...
it doesn't serve much purpose to expose your view and just say other people's view are just stupid.
It means I decide whether I want the policy on a case by case basis. I don't care for limitations on speech, and that is what I was referring to (which I thought was obvious).
In other words, by "limiting people's freedoms," I meant, "this is not a freedom I want limited." I thought that was perfectly obvious.
It just proves you don't know that your freedoms are in fact limiting other's freedom.
Like my right to not be murdered limits someone's right to murder me.
I think all it proves is that you're reading too much into it and making assumptions.
It proves you just lack empathy
There are a lot of Internet psychologists lurking about.
Allow me to read your thoughts: you don't really believe anything you just said. Your response 'proves' that you've been lying about your opinions the entire time.
If you think it is unlikely the only reason can be that you have no fucking clue how common it is.
The situation you presented (convincing a kid that they can fly and it resulting in their death) seems unlikely. I'm not really a "for the children" type of person.
As with everything in life, it's the middle ground that is ideal
Argument to moderation.
You are one of those people that consider that freedom to hit your neighbor is higher than the freedom of not being hit.
I don't believe pedophilia is a problem. I believe child molesters are a problem, though.
Do you realize you do not have to do anything to do any of those things other than convincing the kid to do it himself?
Do you realize that I don't feel the problem is the speech?
But it's no magic bullet.
It doesn't need to be one; the situation you presented is not only highly unlikely, but results due to someone's stupidity.
Is education your cure to any kind of psychological disorder?
I don't think you understand. I would prefer that it works, but I don't believe the fact that it doesn't work in some cases justifies limiting people's freedoms.
Safety, safety, safety... that's all people seem to care about.
If no, well, how do you think society should deal with this? Or should it?
Education. I do not believe that people should be able to be convinced that they can fly. Granted, this is about a five year old. However, the likelihood of this occurring seems to be extremely small in the first place.
I can still see a case to be made for a limitation on "political" speech immediately leading up to a vote.
I thought you were a very strong advocate of free speech and personal liberty? I thought I read that somewhere...
Indeed, this would be less a limit on speech, but more a limit on WHEN such speech is allowed - and in a fair and balanced way.
I don't think any of it is fair and balanced. It's like free speech zones in the US. They could make the argument that you still have the right to free speech, but you just can't have it over here. Why anyone would trust the government with such powers is beyond me. As usual, it's all for safety.
That depends entirely on how you define "benefit," but whether or not there's a benefit depends on the person you ask. I'm sure there are many things that you could say have 'no benefit'; that doesn't mean we should be able to ban them.
What about when your "freedom" has a direct impact on my safety?
What, you mean the same justification used for the TSA and the Patriot Act? "Your right to privacy has an impact on my safety! We must all sacrifice it to be safe!"
Oh. A direct impact. Well, luckily for you, that isn't possible with speech. The only people who can hurt (physically) you are the listeners, and their actions are their own.
If you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, there is panic and people fight to escape.
I've got to wonder if this has ever actually happened.
I'll punch you in the face. Don't worry, it'll only hurt for a few seconds.
Can we shut down all religious websites for 24 hours, too? What about ones that disagree with my political opinions? It's just 24 hours, and I say it's "good censorship."
The point is that the such advertising makes parenting more difficult.
Just about anything could make parenting more difficult. The Internet, television, advertisements, the existence of sharp objects (kitchen knives, for instance), etc.
Better ban it all because certain people can't handle those things! Or at the very least, it's partly their fault (which is bad for some reason).
No, they're codified in law. The government presumably wouldn't arrest you if those laws didn't exist, and there's nothing "natural" (whatever that means) about any of this. People not liking your speech doesn't mean that it must be made forbidden by law.
I don't think arresting people for saying that they wouldn't mind killing someone is a better solution just like I don't think the TSA is an acceptable solution even if we had a real problem with terrorism. People seem to want to live in this fantasy land where there are never any casualties (even if it means throwing away freedom for security).
If we would consider things like ACTA, PIPA, SOPA etc, then its a different story.
Right. This is about children/potential murderers, and is therefore okay.
The ones that put up with the TSA, the Patriot Act, free speech zones, and countless other nonsense (some even supporting them)? The ones that gladly trade away freedom for security? Freedom loving? Right. At least, that's how it seems.
a bad interpretation of what free speech means
It means exactly what it implies. There are no limits upon freedom of speech unless otherwise specified (perhaps implicitly). Of course, we do currently have the notion of 'protected speech', but we needn't have that.
Words don't force anyone to do anything, but if I know saying those words will cause that person to choose to react violently, and I say them in a deliberate attempt to have them wreak violence, then I have orchestrated that violence.
I'd still say that the violence is completely the fault of the people who committed the violence.
If I pay a hitman to kill someone, don't you think I bear some responsibility for that person's death?
You bear responsibility for paying the hitman, but that is all.
And I'd say saying something that may or may not offend someone (regardless of your intentions) is quite a bit different than paying a hitman to murder someone. No one was paid anything, random people committed the violence, and there was no real guarantee anything would happen (less so than with a hitman). This is a single video, and I'd rather not have people get punished just because certain people are oversensitive.
I am not advocating the reduction of freedom, just the recognition of the responsibility it imbues.
That depends on what you mean by "responsibility." Do you mean being criticized for your actions? Punished for them?
Slashdot Mirror
That it was by accident makes it alright?
Are you serious? Yeah, I'm sure that text scarred them for life. They're as good as dead!
Wow, that's awful. Almost as bad as murder!
That lack of respect is what leads to intolerance.
As long as it was just speech, I do not believe they should be arrested for anything. Also, that's just incredibly ambiguous. "Respect" can mean just about anyone. Criticized me? Disrespectful. You disagree with me? Disrespect.
What is it about safety that is so interesting?
Generally a majority.
Meaning...?
I was simply saying that it's subjective, not that tyranny of the majority doesn't exist.
So far I haven't heard any. Not a single one.
I'm sure someone who thinks it has benefits could tell you. I suspect people who want to falsely scream "fire" in a crowded theater and incite panic are pretty rare, though.
Why would anyone trust the government to do anything?
Not really relevant to what I said (which was talking about the limitation of speech).
I, for example, agree with slander and libel laws.
I don't.
Personal liberty is harmed when someone is legally entitled to slander you.
I believe it's harmed when someone believes the slander and then takes action against you. I believe they're the ones at fault.
I don't agree with the free speech zones. I don't think they are terribly similar to limited speech prior to elections, because they differ vastly in terms of likely abuses.
"Go somewhere else if you want freedom of speech" doesn't seem too different to me than "wait for a while if you want freedom of speech."
All that matters is safety, though. Especially if you disagree with someone's political speech.
Who decides what is and is not a "benefit"? I might see your hobbies as being completely worthless and detrimental, but that is only my opinion. The fact that you cannot see a benefit does not mean something should be banned.
A bit self-centered, wouldn't you think?
Maybe it is, but I don't think that's a bad thing at all in this case. I honestly don't see where you're going with this. Are you saying that all laws are self-centered? If so, I don't mind that at all, but I'm free to disagree with whatever I please (or at least I believe I should be able to).
Your right not to be murdered is not universal and absolute.
Never said that it was. Either you're arguing with many different straw men, or I'm seriously misunderstanding you.
And I think you're talking too much about your rights, and not enough about the rights of others.
I don't think so. Of course, I'm not just talking about my rights; I'm speaking of a right I believe everyone should have.
But aren't their desires a bit selfish, anyway? They just want to fulfill their goals! Clearly that's the case...
it doesn't serve much purpose to expose your view and just say other people's view are just stupid.
I don't know what you're talking about.
But what the fuck does that mean?
It means I decide whether I want the policy on a case by case basis. I don't care for limitations on speech, and that is what I was referring to (which I thought was obvious).
In other words, by "limiting people's freedoms," I meant, "this is not a freedom I want limited." I thought that was perfectly obvious.
It just proves you don't know that your freedoms are in fact limiting other's freedom.
Like my right to not be murdered limits someone's right to murder me.
I think all it proves is that you're reading too much into it and making assumptions.
It proves you just lack empathy
There are a lot of Internet psychologists lurking about.
Allow me to read your thoughts: you don't really believe anything you just said. Your response 'proves' that you've been lying about your opinions the entire time.
If you think it is unlikely the only reason can be that you have no fucking clue how common it is.
The situation you presented (convincing a kid that they can fly and it resulting in their death) seems unlikely. I'm not really a "for the children" type of person.
As with everything in life, it's the middle ground that is ideal
Argument to moderation.
You are one of those people that consider that freedom to hit your neighbor is higher than the freedom of not being hit.
Depends on what we're talking about.
Nor is pedophilia.
I don't believe pedophilia is a problem. I believe child molesters are a problem, though.
Do you realize you do not have to do anything to do any of those things other than convincing the kid to do it himself?
Do you realize that I don't feel the problem is the speech?
But it's no magic bullet.
It doesn't need to be one; the situation you presented is not only highly unlikely, but results due to someone's stupidity.
Is education your cure to any kind of psychological disorder?
I don't think you understand. I would prefer that it works, but I don't believe the fact that it doesn't work in some cases justifies limiting people's freedoms.
Safety, safety, safety... that's all people seem to care about.
If no, well, how do you think society should deal with this? Or should it?
Education. I do not believe that people should be able to be convinced that they can fly. Granted, this is about a five year old. However, the likelihood of this occurring seems to be extremely small in the first place.
I do not see a problem.
I can still see a case to be made for a limitation on "political" speech immediately leading up to a vote.
I thought you were a very strong advocate of free speech and personal liberty? I thought I read that somewhere...
Indeed, this would be less a limit on speech, but more a limit on WHEN such speech is allowed - and in a fair and balanced way.
I don't think any of it is fair and balanced. It's like free speech zones in the US. They could make the argument that you still have the right to free speech, but you just can't have it over here. Why anyone would trust the government with such powers is beyond me. As usual, it's all for safety.
I would not be guilty of anything in regard of the law?
I'm sure you would be. That's how the law is right now.
But I don't think you should be.
what benefit is there
That depends entirely on how you define "benefit," but whether or not there's a benefit depends on the person you ask. I'm sure there are many things that you could say have 'no benefit'; that doesn't mean we should be able to ban them.
What about when your "freedom" has a direct impact on my safety?
What, you mean the same justification used for the TSA and the Patriot Act? "Your right to privacy has an impact on my safety! We must all sacrifice it to be safe!"
Oh. A direct impact. Well, luckily for you, that isn't possible with speech. The only people who can hurt (physically) you are the listeners, and their actions are their own.
If you yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, there is panic and people fight to escape.
I've got to wonder if this has ever actually happened.
it's simply that there are consequences
Then you're not allowed to do so. If you are punished by the government, then that defeats the entire purpose of freedom of speech.
I agree that it's not censorship, though.
good censorship
I do not believe that exists.
Since it's just 24 hours
I'll punch you in the face. Don't worry, it'll only hurt for a few seconds.
Can we shut down all religious websites for 24 hours, too? What about ones that disagree with my political opinions? It's just 24 hours, and I say it's "good censorship."
The point is that the such advertising makes parenting more difficult.
Just about anything could make parenting more difficult. The Internet, television, advertisements, the existence of sharp objects (kitchen knives, for instance), etc.
Better ban it all because certain people can't handle those things! Or at the very least, it's partly their fault (which is bad for some reason).
So the question is.. if you don't like the ads on the site.. WHY DO YOU GO THERE?
The content of the website might be more valuable than avoiding ads. They might be blocking said ads.
the limitations on free speech are NATURAL
No, they're codified in law. The government presumably wouldn't arrest you if those laws didn't exist, and there's nothing "natural" (whatever that means) about any of this. People not liking your speech doesn't mean that it must be made forbidden by law.
In this case it is better to be safe than sorry.
I don't think arresting people for saying that they wouldn't mind killing someone is a better solution just like I don't think the TSA is an acceptable solution even if we had a real problem with terrorism. People seem to want to live in this fantasy land where there are never any casualties (even if it means throwing away freedom for security).
If we would consider things like ACTA, PIPA, SOPA etc, then its a different story.
Right. This is about children/potential murderers, and is therefore okay.
freedom loving common man
The ones that put up with the TSA, the Patriot Act, free speech zones, and countless other nonsense (some even supporting them)? The ones that gladly trade away freedom for security? Freedom loving? Right. At least, that's how it seems.
a bad interpretation of what free speech means
It means exactly what it implies. There are no limits upon freedom of speech unless otherwise specified (perhaps implicitly). Of course, we do currently have the notion of 'protected speech', but we needn't have that.
So if you paid to have someone killed, you wouldn't feel or consider yourself responsible for their death?
What I meant was that I wouldn't be directly responsible for their death.
Words don't force anyone to do anything, but if I know saying those words will cause that person to choose to react violently, and I say them in a deliberate attempt to have them wreak violence, then I have orchestrated that violence.
I'd still say that the violence is completely the fault of the people who committed the violence.
If I pay a hitman to kill someone, don't you think I bear some responsibility for that person's death?
You bear responsibility for paying the hitman, but that is all.
And I'd say saying something that may or may not offend someone (regardless of your intentions) is quite a bit different than paying a hitman to murder someone. No one was paid anything, random people committed the violence, and there was no real guarantee anything would happen (less so than with a hitman). This is a single video, and I'd rather not have people get punished just because certain people are oversensitive.
I am not advocating the reduction of freedom, just the recognition of the responsibility it imbues.
That depends on what you mean by "responsibility." Do you mean being criticized for your actions? Punished for them?