A public airwaves-using TV-company has the same rights to free speech, that the public airwaves-using Aighearach and mi do. Whether Aigherach and mi communicate over audible frequencies, or via Internet makes us no different — as far as the First Amendment is concerned — from the KKKapitalists and Nazis communicating via radio spectrum.
The government may be entitled to control, where we say things or how loud we are, but it can not control, what we say (or, by extension, what we choose to not say).
That said, your anger is amusing. Clearly in the wrong, you vent at the person setting you straight...
You say that is irrelevant, well you don't care about the Constitution
I care very much about the Constitution, but the document makes no mention of radio. It does, however, mention speech without any allusions whatsoever to "public" ownership of the air necessary to transmit the audio between the speaker's mouth an the audience's ears.
Left up to you, you'd claim, the public ownership of this air gives the government a right to control what's being said over it. Indeed, you just said so: the public airwaves are not something they own.
And, indeed, they don't. But they still are — ought to be — allowed to transmit over them whatever speech they want and the "Fairness Doctrine" (which you, a Democrat, noisily disowned earlier) violated that right for decades.
Nearly every movement has some dummies who break the law in it's name.
Nice equivocation. Yes, no movement is immune against some of its members being criminals. Antifa's entire modus operandi, however, is based on violence — For the Greater Good[TM]. They not only don't discourage it, as any half-decent organization would, they openly encourage it:
“There is the question of whether these people should feel safe organizing as Nazis in public, and I don’t think they should,” said Isaacson.
The first amendment does not require me to listen to all political speech
That's correct, but it only allows you to hang-up (or press "Delete", if the speech arrives by e-mail). You still can not keep them from continuing to try to get your attention — unless the attempts raise to the level of harassment. At least, I do not see, how...
If either of the two candidates were a Russian crony, it was Ms. Hillary Clinton — her and her husband's history of taking bribes from Putin is well documented. That of her opponent is not. As in zero... You can't even put together a coherent accusation, much less support it with any evidence. "Collusion" my tail — there is no such crime.
keep pushing to get Hillary on track
Yeah, keep pushing. Then tie her down to it until the train arrives...
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), and John Kerry (D-MA):
It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view.
U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA)
I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone
Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa)
...we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.
As a Democrat you're the first I've heard about it
So, you are Democrat, because you want abortion and marijuana to be legal... But, now that I've disabused you of your ignorance a little bit, you are going to call your lawmakers and express your disapproval of any and all efforts to reintroduce the Doctrine, right? And apologize for publicly questioning my integrity, right? Right?..
Ayn Rand [...] requiring 5 minutes at the end of lectures for opposing views!
That may be a good policy for teaching students... That is a different topic.
When all the secrets of those at the top are exposed then the secrets of those below them can be accessible and not before.
Secrets? What secrets? For years Slashdot has given high praise to people asserting, information can not be "stolen"... And now, suddenly, it can be... Confusing, is not it?
go on ask google to give you a copy, go on let's see the results,
It may be harder with other companies, but Google (claims to) makes it easy.
ask them to correct or delete it
You aren't any more entitled to that, than your ex is entitled to wiping your memory about your happy times together. Contrary to what some may claim, there is no "right to be forgotten".
Privately-owned, competing railroads provide good service. Wow. Who knew...
Meanwhile, government monopoly NJ Transit would not only can leave 1-2 minutes early sometimes (when they aren't 20 minutes late), they would kick a passenger off the train for pointing it out...
What it is I oppose is irrelevant. What matters is that you asked for citations of when owners of private property were told, how they can and can not use it for the Greater Good [TM]. And I gave you to examples. And not just any examples, but ones relevant to the issue at hand — when the property in question was/is used for speech.
Well, there is only one that does so. Oh shoot! It's the U.S.!
I know, Iran will demand the costs of the higher education from anyone attempting to leave the country — or, if they already left, from their relatives.
Various other Socialist hell-holes would/did try the same thing, with varying degree of success.
Democracy requires the seditious and the patriot to convince you. If the patriot fails then so do we all.
That's a fine quote with an air of centuries about it...
But it is a bit limited — none of the sides vying to convince need to be seditious nor otherwise criminal. For example, Russia spent millions trying to convince the West to accept its annexation of parts of Ukraine. They are wrong — and evil — but it would be no treason for an American to accept (and adopt, and even advance) either side of this argument...
Because Yellow Pages were given to you free but you pay for your internet service.
Wha?..
You — a business — paid for your telephone service. For the customers to be able to call you. And your number was listed in the phone book.
To be listed prominently you had to pay the phone book publisher extra — the phone company itself.
Now FedEx starts going to those businesses and telling them [...]
The only thing stopping FedEx from quadrupling their fees every week is the fear of competition.
Since they have no other choice to ship to you
They do have a choice — there is UPS, there is USPS, and a bunch of smaller guys ready to offer themselves as the alternative.
What you are about to say is that yes, but ISPs are monopolies!.. Yes, in some places of the country they are — thanks to the Statists like you. Your "solution", to solve a government-created problem with more government intervention is not only laughable, it is also dangerous to our freedoms. You aren't merely wrong — your belief in the right to tell others, what they can and can not do with their equipment makes you a bad person. An asshole...
Now wouldn't you be furious at this?
You sound like you believe, that anyone in the (bogus) scenario you described — the shipper, the recipient, the delivery company — owe anybody anything. Nobody does. You can pop your lid off in fury, but FedEx still does not owe you a delivery, that was not paid for at the price they choose to set.
Yellow pages is hardly a thriving business at this point...
That may be a reason for business not to do it. But it does not answer the question of why it is wrong — immoral, unethical — and ought to remain illegal.
Though a free country can't ban them, we do have to be aware of these efforts and we can't base any actual decisions on the "sentiment" of social networks and blogs. Because the enemy — such as Russia — really does make massive use of these methods, paying loony activists and saturating twitter et al with comments by both human trolls and outright robots.
And whereas the old USSR was only relying on Left-leaningmovements abroad, Putin is happy to use everyone. In France, for example, it is the Right that's on his payroll, whereas in Germany — the Left, even if the common media wouldn't admit that, singling out individual assholes, rather than entire movements it finds sympathetic.
Every time you talk to someone, you "manipulate" him. Spending tax dollars on communicating with the tax payers is perfectly legal in most countries — including, since recently, the US.
I fail to see, how a country with anything like the First Amendment can possibly ban any entity, private, commercial, or governmental — except the country's own government — from performing such "opinion shaping".
but the poster's advice on skipping Heinlein is extremely poor advice.
Which poster are you referring to? No one in this thread has said anything negative about Heinlein, and quite a few — myself included — have praised him.
David Drake then. I'm reading him right now. Not Azimov's caliber by far, but if you want war, he delivers — a Vietnam veteran, he knows it first hand. The "Hammer's Slammers" series is just combat. Go for Reaches to expand to other things. Reportedly, the author is a history buff, many of his stories recast the historical episodes from humanity's past in a "spaceship" era.
The Leutenant Leary line is is a bit repetitive — and much too implausible... You enjoy it while you read it, but you can't remember, how many you've read, when you are done...
Slashdot Mirror
A public airwaves-using TV-company has the same rights to free speech, that the public airwaves-using Aighearach and mi do. Whether Aigherach and mi communicate over audible frequencies, or via Internet makes us no different — as far as the First Amendment is concerned — from the KKKapitalists and Nazis communicating via radio spectrum.
The government may be entitled to control, where we say things or how loud we are, but it can not control, what we say (or, by extension, what we choose to not say).
That said, your anger is amusing. Clearly in the wrong, you vent at the person setting you straight...
You had me at the "no, no, no" :-)
I care very much about the Constitution, but the document makes no mention of radio. It does, however, mention speech without any allusions whatsoever to "public" ownership of the air necessary to transmit the audio between the speaker's mouth an the audience's ears.
Left up to you, you'd claim, the public ownership of this air gives the government a right to control what's being said over it. Indeed, you just said so: the public airwaves are not something they own.
And, indeed, they don't. But they still are — ought to be — allowed to transmit over them whatever speech they want and the "Fairness Doctrine" (which you, a Democrat, noisily disowned earlier) violated that right for decades.
Nice equivocation. Yes, no movement is immune against some of its members being criminals. Antifa's entire modus operandi, however, is based on violence — For the Greater Good[TM]. They not only don't discourage it, as any half-decent organization would, they openly encourage it:
That's correct, but it only allows you to hang-up (or press "Delete", if the speech arrives by e-mail). You still can not keep them from continuing to try to get your attention — unless the attempts raise to the level of harassment. At least, I do not see, how...
If either of the two candidates were a Russian crony, it was Ms. Hillary Clinton — her and her husband's history of taking bribes from Putin is well documented. That of her opponent is not. As in zero... You can't even put together a coherent accusation, much less support it with any evidence. "Collusion" my tail — there is no such crime.
Yeah, keep pushing. Then tie her down to it until the train arrives...
It controlled, what private companies could say. The airways being "public" is irrelevant.
From the link I gave earlier:
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), and John Kerry (D-MA): It's time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) I would want this station and all stations to have to present a balanced perspective and different points of view. U.S. Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA) I’ll work on bringing it back. I still believe in it. It should and will affect everyone Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) ...we gotta get the Fairness Doctrine back in law again.So, you are Democrat, because you want abortion and marijuana to be legal... But, now that I've disabused you of your ignorance a little bit, you are going to call your lawmakers and express your disapproval of any and all efforts to reintroduce the Doctrine, right? And apologize for publicly questioning my integrity, right? Right?..
That may be a good policy for teaching students... That is a different topic.
Secrets? What secrets? For years Slashdot has given high praise to people asserting, information can not be "stolen"... And now, suddenly, it can be... Confusing, is not it?
It may be harder with other companies, but Google (claims to) makes it easy.
You aren't any more entitled to that, than your ex is entitled to wiping your memory about your happy times together. Contrary to what some may claim, there is no "right to be forgotten".
Privately-owned, competing railroads provide good service. Wow. Who knew...
Meanwhile, government monopoly NJ Transit would not only can leave 1-2 minutes early sometimes (when they aren't 20 minutes late), they would kick a passenger off the train for pointing it out...
Haterz gonna hate, I suppose.
What it is I oppose is irrelevant. What matters is that you asked for citations of when owners of private property were told, how they can and can not use it for the Greater Good [TM]. And I gave you to examples. And not just any examples, but ones relevant to the issue at hand — when the property in question was/is used for speech.
Weird... I thought, Slashdot's collective opinion was, that information can not be stolen — whether it can even be owned is doubtful...
Because it "wants to be free" and because you still have your files even if I made a copy — and shared it with the rest of the Internet...
But, yeah, it does suck — and some of us thought so for years...
I know, Iran will demand the costs of the higher education from anyone attempting to leave the country — or, if they already left, from their relatives.
Various other Socialist hell-holes would/did try the same thing, with varying degree of success.
The new rules allow blocking based on technicalities — such as claiming to be from a number that does not exist.
As long as you provide a real number — such as that of a political campaign's office — you are in the clear. And should be...
I do too. But I do not know, how to ban them without violating the First Amendment...
The "Fairness Doctrine" did just that — in our Land of the Free. It was abolished, but a bunch of Democrats want it back...
Meanwhile, the so called "Net Neutrality" is the same thing by another name.
That's a fine quote with an air of centuries about it...
But it is a bit limited — none of the sides vying to convince need to be seditious nor otherwise criminal. For example, Russia spent millions trying to convince the West to accept its annexation of parts of Ukraine. They are wrong — and evil — but it would be no treason for an American to accept (and adopt, and even advance) either side of this argument...
Wha?..
You — a business — paid for your telephone service. For the customers to be able to call you. And your number was listed in the phone book.
To be listed prominently you had to pay the phone book publisher extra — the phone company itself.
The only thing stopping FedEx from quadrupling their fees every week is the fear of competition.
They do have a choice — there is UPS, there is USPS, and a bunch of smaller guys ready to offer themselves as the alternative.
What you are about to say is that yes, but ISPs are monopolies!.. Yes, in some places of the country they are — thanks to the Statists like you. Your "solution", to solve a government-created problem with more government intervention is not only laughable, it is also dangerous to our freedoms. You aren't merely wrong — your belief in the right to tell others, what they can and can not do with their equipment makes you a bad person. An asshole...
You sound like you believe, that anyone in the (bogus) scenario you described — the shipper, the recipient, the delivery company — owe anybody anything. Nobody does. You can pop your lid off in fury, but FedEx still does not owe you a delivery, that was not paid for at the price they choose to set.
That may be a reason for business not to do it. But it does not answer the question of why it is wrong — immoral, unethical — and ought to remain illegal.
It worked for Yellow Pages, why is wrong for Internet providers?
Who, among Slashdot's esteemed editorial board, decided, the publication's audience needs a refresher on what scientific method is?
And who, subsequently, chose the Rolling Stone — whoever it is they are interviewing — as the best fount of this illumination?
The only question is whether you are a sincere moron (a.k.a. "useful idiot"), or a paid troll.
Given how you down-modded my post before replying anonymously, the latter is more likely — because only an asshole would do such a thing...
Though a free country can't ban them, we do have to be aware of these efforts and we can't base any actual decisions on the "sentiment" of social networks and blogs. Because the enemy — such as Russia — really does make massive use of these methods, paying loony activists and saturating twitter et al with comments by both human trolls and outright robots.
And whereas the old USSR was only relying on Left-leaning movements abroad, Putin is happy to use everyone. In France, for example, it is the Right that's on his payroll, whereas in Germany — the Left, even if the common media wouldn't admit that, singling out individual assholes, rather than entire movements it finds sympathetic.
Every time you talk to someone, you "manipulate" him. Spending tax dollars on communicating with the tax payers is perfectly legal in most countries — including, since recently, the US.
I fail to see, how a country with anything like the First Amendment can possibly ban any entity, private, commercial, or governmental — except the country's own government — from performing such "opinion shaping".
Which poster are you referring to? No one in this thread has said anything negative about Heinlein, and quite a few — myself included — have praised him.
David Drake then. I'm reading him right now. Not Azimov's caliber by far, but if you want war, he delivers — a Vietnam veteran, he knows it first hand. The "Hammer's Slammers" series is just combat. Go for Reaches to expand to other things. Reportedly, the author is a history buff, many of his stories recast the historical episodes from humanity's past in a "spaceship" era.
The Leutenant Leary line is is a bit repetitive — and much too implausible... You enjoy it while you read it, but you can't remember, how many you've read, when you are done...
Well, Robert Louis was a great writer (and poet) too, but his last name is spelled with a "v" instead of "ph".