Actually the ECHR doesn't say anything about hate speech. Here is the entire article relating to freedom of expression:
Article 10 â" Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
This is broadly in line with the position in the US, where there are exceptions for things that may injure others, state secrets, libel, doctor-patient confidentiality and the like.
The anti-hate-speech laws in the UK have been severely limited by the ECHR, which is one of the reasons why the current government wants to get rid of it.
Not to undermine your blog Mr. Person, but it is called BattleSwarm and does have the tagline "Attacking so fast they won't know what hit them", some might be forgiven for mistaking it for a site trying to frame migration as a military conflict that people should be fighting against...
But yeah, YouTube is rather over-zealous with it's enforcement.
Ironically the biggest defender of freedom of speech is often the European Court of Human Rights, which enforces the freedom of expression clause of the European Convention on Human Right (ECHR).
I would argue that democracy is already NOT working on immigration.
Mostly because the two sides can't compromise. That's the problem, and the solution.
The US was built on immigration. Limited and controlled population shifts.
I'm no history buff but I don't think that's true. In fact as I recall most of the early settlers were asylum seekers fleeing religious persecution.
Without documentation or control, do we really know what we are getting? Where are these people going to live? What are they going to do to sustain themselves?
Seems like the most obvious solution is to provide a path for them to get documented and into a system that helps them settle and build new communities and opportunities. Look at it as an investment in people who will become taxpayers and consumers.
People said the same thing about asylum seekers coming from Syria and Libya to EU countries. They somehow expected them to have carefully prepared an asylum case as they fled from chemical warfare, airstrikes, ISIS and countless other threats.
There is no prefect solution. You manage the situation to prevent local problems due to too many migrants, and you work to fix the things that are causing migration. The former provides some immediate relief, the latter takes years but is the only real fix.
Are we more likely to have actual immigration reform come through Congress?
A better question is if using the lives and mental health of children as a tool to force Democrats to agree to these reforms a reasonable thing to do? Is that how democracy is supposed to work?
Are migrants going to stop coming to the US illegally for fear of their family being split apart?
Doubtful, considering what the alternative for many is. But in any case, you are begging the question. Is the number of migrants really such a huge problem, and is stopping them coming the best way to deal with it as opposed to, say, managing immigration better?
People are always going to migrate. The US was built on migration. There are no short term fixes.
Back in the day we used to manually optimize code by "pipelining" it. We knew how many cycles were available between memory access slots, how many cycles the FPU took to complete it's work, and fit all the logic code in-between those critical points.
Nowadays SMT just executes two parallel threads so that CPU resources can be as fully utilized as possible without the programmer or compiler having to carefully optimize for one specific model.
1970s Britain's problem was more to do with the cars being shit than anything else. People used to take it for granted that cars were unreliable and disintegrated after a few years. Then better foreign cars became available and they wouldn't put up with it any more.
Privacy rights extend beyond death in the EU, because if people knew that they didn't it would affect them while they were alive. Also, the privacy of their families and anyone else involved has to be considered too.
I like the EU's default privacy stance. All violations of privacy should require consent or strong justification.
In the EU they have a legal obligation to delete that data, so even if they didn't they have to pretend they did or face a massive data protection investigation/fine.
Why throw the parents in one cage and the children in a different cage? Why not keep them together?
Even if you ignore the humanitarian grounds, it surely costs more to provide free childcare that the parents would otherwise have given.
Let's drop the pretence. This is being done to put pressure on the Democrats and to discourage migrants. It's not a legal requirement or procedural issue, it's a deliberate decision to separate children from their parents for political reasons.
Doxing often involves just collecting publicly available information. Most people don't realize how various little bits here and there can be collated and cross-referenced to build up a profile of them, kinda like what Facebook does.
Just because something is public doesn't mean it can't be used for doxing. Merely collecting it for the purposes of harassment or shaming is enough.
Also, asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They are following the legal process of claiming asylum from danger. Even if their case is not accepted, they are not breaking the law.
female captain goes one-on-one with a Klingon and doesn't die
That didn't actually happen in the first episode, and in the second... Well, spoiler alert.
I'm also tempted to point out Klingons are not actually that great in hand-to-hand combat with other species. Worf kinda proved that but the basic issue is that they are big and slow. Against each other it doesn't matter, but against more nimble opponents with weapons it's a disadvantage.
You have to figure that their love of hand-to-hand combat is mostly traditional. If they really wanted to win they would use guns, but instead choose the more honourable bladed weapons. It makes even more sense in Discovery's time, with that particular group of Klingons being very religious and wrapping themselves in tradition and dogma.
The original series episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" had aliens who were literally half black and half white, fighting a racist war with the half white half black ones. It was extremely "in your face" and obvious. Then there was the first on-screen interracial kiss, again very obvious and if you read the history of the episode something that Roddenberry had to push very hard to include.
In the TNG era you had episodes that were quite overtly about the oppression and "treatment" of LGBT people, featuring a genderless race of aliens and one who does not conform to their traditional concept. Not to mention episodes based around Data's rights as a person/machine, Trill relationships when their gender suddenly changes, respecting the rules and laws of other cultures, racial/genetic supremacists, travellers, Native Americans and so on.
DS9 introduced a lot of religious aspects, and looked at how a principled and progressive society could fight a war. Voyager was all over the place but did lots of social justice episodes, not least the recurring theme of criminal rehabilitation and examination of humanity from Seven's point of view.
Causing unwanted and artificial 'controversy' is also a very effective way to destroy a media property.
Yes. That's why we get all this nonsense about Star Trek Discovery being some kind of "SJW nightmare". Anyone who has seen Trek will know that it's always been that way, the reboot movies excepted. And it's actually a lot less about that than previous series.
But that narrative works to convince people who haven't seen it that it's bad, so they keep pushing it. Anything to destroy shows starring non-white male leads it seems. I'm actually a bit shocked it's that bad, in 2018, but it's far from the only example of this campaign of manufactured outrage.
Don't let the "pc overkill" nonsense put you off. There is far less of it than the original series or TNG. It's just some people with an agenda saying that.
Could be a really interesting story there. Khan started from a not unreasonable position - he and his people had been used, abused and discarded by humanity and deserved a life, a chance to live. But he's also been bred for war and despite his intelligence he can't suppress those instincts entirely.
Those things pulling him in different directions, and what Kirk unintentionally did to him made a great movie.
Slashdot Mirror
How much further has out renewable tech advanced because politicians decided to offer subsidies like fossil and nuclear get?
I agree, the law in the UK is stupid and excessive.
Actually the ECHR doesn't say anything about hate speech. Here is the entire article relating to freedom of expression:
Article 10 â" Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
This is broadly in line with the position in the US, where there are exceptions for things that may injure others, state secrets, libel, doctor-patient confidentiality and the like.
The anti-hate-speech laws in the UK have been severely limited by the ECHR, which is one of the reasons why the current government wants to get rid of it.
Not to undermine your blog Mr. Person, but it is called BattleSwarm and does have the tagline "Attacking so fast they won't know what hit them", some might be forgiven for mistaking it for a site trying to frame migration as a military conflict that people should be fighting against...
But yeah, YouTube is rather over-zealous with it's enforcement.
Ironically the biggest defender of freedom of speech is often the European Court of Human Rights, which enforces the freedom of expression clause of the European Convention on Human Right (ECHR).
I would argue that democracy is already NOT working on immigration.
Mostly because the two sides can't compromise. That's the problem, and the solution.
The US was built on immigration. Limited and controlled population shifts.
I'm no history buff but I don't think that's true. In fact as I recall most of the early settlers were asylum seekers fleeing religious persecution.
Without documentation or control, do we really know what we are getting? Where are these people going to live? What are they going to do to sustain themselves?
Seems like the most obvious solution is to provide a path for them to get documented and into a system that helps them settle and build new communities and opportunities. Look at it as an investment in people who will become taxpayers and consumers.
People said the same thing about asylum seekers coming from Syria and Libya to EU countries. They somehow expected them to have carefully prepared an asylum case as they fled from chemical warfare, airstrikes, ISIS and countless other threats.
There is no prefect solution. You manage the situation to prevent local problems due to too many migrants, and you work to fix the things that are causing migration. The former provides some immediate relief, the latter takes years but is the only real fix.
Are we more likely to have actual immigration reform come through Congress?
A better question is if using the lives and mental health of children as a tool to force Democrats to agree to these reforms a reasonable thing to do? Is that how democracy is supposed to work?
Are migrants going to stop coming to the US illegally for fear of their family being split apart?
Doubtful, considering what the alternative for many is. But in any case, you are begging the question. Is the number of migrants really such a huge problem, and is stopping them coming the best way to deal with it as opposed to, say, managing immigration better?
People are always going to migrate. The US was built on migration. There are no short term fixes.
In Europe we have detention facilities for families. They are secure but also provide conditions suitable for families, at least in theory.
Back in the day we used to manually optimize code by "pipelining" it. We knew how many cycles were available between memory access slots, how many cycles the FPU took to complete it's work, and fit all the logic code in-between those critical points.
Nowadays SMT just executes two parallel threads so that CPU resources can be as fully utilized as possible without the programmer or compiler having to carefully optimize for one specific model.
1970s Britain's problem was more to do with the cars being shit than anything else. People used to take it for granted that cars were unreliable and disintegrated after a few years. Then better foreign cars became available and they wouldn't put up with it any more.
Privacy rights extend beyond death in the EU, because if people knew that they didn't it would affect them while they were alive. Also, the privacy of their families and anyone else involved has to be considered too.
I like the EU's default privacy stance. All violations of privacy should require consent or strong justification.
In the EU they have a legal obligation to delete that data, so even if they didn't they have to pretend they did or face a massive data protection investigation/fine.
At least it wasn't Cisco. How many CVEs for hard coded tech support backdoors are we up to now?
It would be just as bad. As is the list of "SJWs".
Lists of people you dislike are almost always a bad idea.
Why throw the parents in one cage and the children in a different cage? Why not keep them together?
Even if you ignore the humanitarian grounds, it surely costs more to provide free childcare that the parents would otherwise have given.
Let's drop the pretence. This is being done to put pressure on the Democrats and to discourage migrants. It's not a legal requirement or procedural issue, it's a deliberate decision to separate children from their parents for political reasons.
Doxing often involves just collecting publicly available information. Most people don't realize how various little bits here and there can be collated and cross-referenced to build up a profile of them, kinda like what Facebook does.
Just because something is public doesn't mean it can't be used for doxing. Merely collecting it for the purposes of harassment or shaming is enough.
Also, asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They are following the legal process of claiming asylum from danger. Even if their case is not accepted, they are not breaking the law.
The best fix is to make Intel buy you an AMD system to replace your broken Intel one.
Can you give some specific examples of plot points that you consider to be "SJW nonsense"?
female captain goes one-on-one with a Klingon and doesn't die
That didn't actually happen in the first episode, and in the second... Well, spoiler alert.
I'm also tempted to point out Klingons are not actually that great in hand-to-hand combat with other species. Worf kinda proved that but the basic issue is that they are big and slow. Against each other it doesn't matter, but against more nimble opponents with weapons it's a disadvantage.
You have to figure that their love of hand-to-hand combat is mostly traditional. If they really wanted to win they would use guns, but instead choose the more honourable bladed weapons. It makes even more sense in Discovery's time, with that particular group of Klingons being very religious and wrapping themselves in tradition and dogma.
The original series episode "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield" had aliens who were literally half black and half white, fighting a racist war with the half white half black ones. It was extremely "in your face" and obvious. Then there was the first on-screen interracial kiss, again very obvious and if you read the history of the episode something that Roddenberry had to push very hard to include.
In the TNG era you had episodes that were quite overtly about the oppression and "treatment" of LGBT people, featuring a genderless race of aliens and one who does not conform to their traditional concept. Not to mention episodes based around Data's rights as a person/machine, Trill relationships when their gender suddenly changes, respecting the rules and laws of other cultures, racial/genetic supremacists, travellers, Native Americans and so on.
DS9 introduced a lot of religious aspects, and looked at how a principled and progressive society could fight a war. Voyager was all over the place but did lots of social justice episodes, not least the recurring theme of criminal rehabilitation and examination of humanity from Seven's point of view.
So maybe Trek isn't for you, and that's fine.
Causing unwanted and artificial 'controversy' is also a very effective way to destroy a media property.
Yes. That's why we get all this nonsense about Star Trek Discovery being some kind of "SJW nightmare". Anyone who has seen Trek will know that it's always been that way, the reboot movies excepted. And it's actually a lot less about that than previous series.
But that narrative works to convince people who haven't seen it that it's bad, so they keep pushing it. Anything to destroy shows starring non-white male leads it seems. I'm actually a bit shocked it's that bad, in 2018, but it's far from the only example of this campaign of manufactured outrage.
Don't let the "pc overkill" nonsense put you off. There is far less of it than the original series or TNG. It's just some people with an agenda saying that.
You can get it in DVD and it's worth watching.
Could be a really interesting story there. Khan started from a not unreasonable position - he and his people had been used, abused and discarded by humanity and deserved a life, a chance to live. But he's also been bred for war and despite his intelligence he can't suppress those instincts entirely.
Those things pulling him in different directions, and what Kirk unintentionally did to him made a great movie.
The TV series has nothing to do with the new movies.
It's mostly about the Klingon war. It's good, worth watching on Netflix or DVD.