Yes, and where we once had a phone system that provided everyone with the same black, pulse-dial phones - and we had to like it - we now have more choices, with more features, and more services for relatively similar costs (don't forget inflation); breaking up Microsoft into Baby Bills that Gates is prevented from warping into customer&competitor-abusing criminal organizations will yield similar improvements. While it is difficult to imagine specifically what benefits we will derive, we can rest assured that we
will
benefit. If there's one thing that the dot.com bubble has demonstrated, it's that long-standing economic laws continue to pretty much hold up... though our interpretations of them don't. Our system has protected Microsoft from society long enough... it's time to protect society from Microsoft...
At h is age, he's expected to be mad. He's learning that the world presented to him by parents and the media is not the world of reality. Sadly, too many misguided fools feel that the appropriate response to this is to continue hiding the reality in the name of protecting the children.
Now, he made the classic error of assuming the First Amendment is an absolute right guaranteeing free expression and that it applies to him. The First Amendment *ONLY* prohibits *CONGRESS* from creating a law that limits it. By reciprocity, the principle extends to the states.
With rights, though, come responsibilities that accrue from the exercise of these rights. If you avoid the responsibility, your right is curtailed and legitimately so. An example often cited is that of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. the actions by this student are akin to providing a microphone for someone shouting "Fire" and, worse, recording the shout to reproduce it for other showings. To his credit, as justification, he wraps himself in a mantle of non-censorship, or of choosing not to impose his values on the discussion. But, the system wasn't his and the responsibility he abdicated was that of protecting the values of the owners of the system. By avoiding this, he damaged them by imputing their support of these values.
Should he be expelled? Only if he dosn't realize his mistake and refuses to learn from it.
My advice: re-read the First Amendment and seriously think about why it was written as it was. If he does so without a chip on his shoulder, he will come to realize that he made a mistake and that his laudable goal of non-censorship was likely based on false iunderstanding propagated by the media regarding the First Amendment. Reiterate support for the First Amendment and its intent to foster free expression but admit that he's learned that it's not as simple as "censor on" "censor off". Admit that, while he may disagree with the university's censorship, he understands that they were within their rights to act as they did (including the irrelevant intellectual property issue).
If they still expel him, he has a case to take to congress and the public and I doubt that the University will want to stand up to that. He's expected to learn at his age and demonstrating that he's learned that there's room in this society for such radically differing viewpoints should get him back to where he can get his degree. He might need a lawyer, too, but I'd get the press nosing around looking for inconsistencies to the school's policies.
Slashdot Mirror
- will
benefit. If there's one thing that the dot.com bubble has demonstrated, it's that long-standing economic laws continue to pretty much hold upAt h is age, he's expected to be mad. He's learning that the world presented to him by parents and the media is not the world of reality. Sadly, too many misguided fools feel that the appropriate response to this is to continue hiding the reality in the name of protecting the children. Now, he made the classic error of assuming the First Amendment is an absolute right guaranteeing free expression and that it applies to him. The First Amendment *ONLY* prohibits *CONGRESS* from creating a law that limits it. By reciprocity, the principle extends to the states. With rights, though, come responsibilities that accrue from the exercise of these rights. If you avoid the responsibility, your right is curtailed and legitimately so. An example often cited is that of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. the actions by this student are akin to providing a microphone for someone shouting "Fire" and, worse, recording the shout to reproduce it for other showings. To his credit, as justification, he wraps himself in a mantle of non-censorship, or of choosing not to impose his values on the discussion. But, the system wasn't his and the responsibility he abdicated was that of protecting the values of the owners of the system. By avoiding this, he damaged them by imputing their support of these values. Should he be expelled? Only if he dosn't realize his mistake and refuses to learn from it. My advice: re-read the First Amendment and seriously think about why it was written as it was. If he does so without a chip on his shoulder, he will come to realize that he made a mistake and that his laudable goal of non-censorship was likely based on false iunderstanding propagated by the media regarding the First Amendment. Reiterate support for the First Amendment and its intent to foster free expression but admit that he's learned that it's not as simple as "censor on" "censor off". Admit that, while he may disagree with the university's censorship, he understands that they were within their rights to act as they did (including the irrelevant intellectual property issue). If they still expel him, he has a case to take to congress and the public and I doubt that the University will want to stand up to that. He's expected to learn at his age and demonstrating that he's learned that there's room in this society for such radically differing viewpoints should get him back to where he can get his degree. He might need a lawyer, too, but I'd get the press nosing around looking for inconsistencies to the school's policies.