You mean where the FBI had a backup and the deletion of the original was part of standard operating procedure and there was literally no reason or obligation to keep the original?
I agree and to me it seems easier to try and promote competition among different corporations to give you what you want than to limit a right because someone was allowed to have a monopoly when we all agree that monopolies are bad.
For my part, I care a lot more about my own freedom than I do about Verizon's.
Functionally, in the eyes of the courts they are the same. People do not lose their rights because they act collectively (corporation). Verizon uses the same rights you do toward a goal.
Or one can try and justify that the give-a-shit level of The People is at an all-time low because they've come to realize just how fucking irrelevant they truly are.
Maybe they have an overly inflated view because they do not understand representative government and because of posts like yours. "The People" are no better at governing than a mob. If 'The People' really think the current government is so terrible then they should stop being irrelevant and run for office and become the change they want others to be.
Maybe they have an overly inflated view because they do not understand representative government and because of posts like yours. "The People" are no better at governing than a mob. If 'The People' really think the current government is so terrible then they should stop being irrelevant and run for office and become the change they want others to be.
So (and this is in common with US law, AFAIK) death threats are not protected speech; to a certain extent, they limit the freedom of the victim.
Yes, there are limitations but they are clearly defined and the result of that causes harm or specifically a reasonable person would respond to protect their person or property.
denying their identity is what's at issue.
Denying someones identity is something that doesn't cause harm (you don't have to respond to protect your person or property), is poorly defined (how many genders are there and how many associate pronouns? How many mis-genderings does it take to break the law? how easy is it to change your gender?), and is based on a philosophy that is not universally accepted (post-modernity). Adopting language and the underlying philosophy against my will to be lawful is de facto compelled speech when no harm was being caused.
Does denying identity extend to trans-racialism? If not why?
Wouldn't that apply to Trudeau as well? Why would he be concerned over something that doesn't affect Canadian business or citizenry?
It's a federal law and the actions by the university were in response to that law. Please do me a favor, and don't act like a twat just because your country is doing stupid shit.
I agree. I think that is why the point of compelled speech is the important part because as far as speech is concerned it is a different animal all together. I have to say certain things to be lawful. It's a matter of how far you are willing to legislate individual interactions and force language usage in those interactions. Personally, I am glad the US has the 1st amendment and multiple court rulings to ensure that compelled speech can never be lawful.
If you break the law with intent to defy a court for protest purposes, that's your own thing, and you can't pin that on the law as written.
You are a fucking troll. Use this phrase "The bill adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the list of characteristics of identifiable groups protected from hate propaganda in the Criminal Code. "
Why don't you quote what you think my position is in this thread so that we can be on the same page instead of continuing your obtuse trolling? Here is a hint: it's the 2nd post.
What is the difference between outlawing racial slurs vs. using the force of law to make me use your preferred pronoun? How many genders are there again?
I believe one of the consequences could be a fine. If you refuse to pay the fine then you could be jailed: Is the contention Peterson made. Is that true?
If that is true then it is semantics of what you are jailed for; not paying the fine as opposed to the reason for that fine and why that fine was not paid. Yes, technically you will not be jailed for that but you can be if you refuse to pay the fine over principle as Peterson has said.
Is compelled speech acceptable in a society that values free speech?
Slashdot Mirror
Obama nominated the Senate refused consent. What seems to be the problem here? How are you redefining consent to get what you want? Sounds rapey
You mean where the FBI had a backup and the deletion of the original was part of standard operating procedure and there was literally no reason or obligation to keep the original?
What was the point in linking that example?
I dream of a society where ever teenager can buy hookers and blow with their own money without asking for mom or dad to raise their allowance!
I agree and to me it seems easier to try and promote competition among different corporations to give you what you want than to limit a right because someone was allowed to have a monopoly when we all agree that monopolies are bad.
For my part, I care a lot more about my own freedom than I do about Verizon's.
Functionally, in the eyes of the courts they are the same. People do not lose their rights because they act collectively (corporation). Verizon uses the same rights you do toward a goal.
How would net neutrality, as currently defined by the FCC (the rules proposed to be repealed) stop internet tracking?
Good god. Life is a simulation! You can tell because the graphics are getting better.
Fake news.
Or as useful as a bump on a log. The effect is the same.
You didn't post facts. You posted platitudes.
I guess you are naturally a twat.
How was my post bitching and moaning? Are you trying to be a twat or does it just come natural for you?
If you are not a constituent of Cruz why is it your business that the people in his district elected him?
Do you have anything better to offer instead of insults and mob rule?
If there is enough evidence to show that the FCCs changes break the laws of the US, they will be ruled illegal
How was it not illegal before 2015 but suddenly illegal now?
Or one can try and justify that the give-a-shit level of The People is at an all-time low because they've come to realize just how fucking irrelevant they truly are.
Maybe they have an overly inflated view because they do not understand representative government and because of posts like yours. "The People" are no better at governing than a mob. If 'The People' really think the current government is so terrible then they should stop being irrelevant and run for office and become the change they want others to be.
*Damn mornings and their coffee.
Maybe they have an overly inflated view because they do not understand representative government and because of posts like yours. "The People" are no better at governing than a mob. If 'The People' really think the current government is so terrible then they should stop being irrelevant and run for office and become the change they want others to be.
So (and this is in common with US law, AFAIK) death threats are not protected speech; to a certain extent, they limit the freedom of the victim.
Yes, there are limitations but they are clearly defined and the result of that causes harm or specifically a reasonable person would respond to protect their person or property.
denying their identity is what's at issue.
Denying someones identity is something that doesn't cause harm (you don't have to respond to protect your person or property), is poorly defined (how many genders are there and how many associate pronouns? How many mis-genderings does it take to break the law? how easy is it to change your gender?), and is based on a philosophy that is not universally accepted (post-modernity). Adopting language and the underlying philosophy against my will to be lawful is de facto compelled speech when no harm was being caused.
Does denying identity extend to trans-racialism? If not why?
Wouldn't that apply to Trudeau as well? Why would he be concerned over something that doesn't affect Canadian business or citizenry?
It's a federal law and the actions by the university were in response to that law. Please do me a favor, and don't act like a twat just because your country is doing stupid shit.
I agree. I think that is why the point of compelled speech is the important part because as far as speech is concerned it is a different animal all together. I have to say certain things to be lawful. It's a matter of how far you are willing to legislate individual interactions and force language usage in those interactions. Personally, I am glad the US has the 1st amendment and multiple court rulings to ensure that compelled speech can never be lawful.
If you break the law with intent to defy a court for protest purposes, that's your own thing, and you can't pin that on the law as written.
Civil disobedience comes in many forms.
You are a fucking troll.
Use this phrase
"The bill adds “gender identity or expression” to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the list of characteristics of identifiable groups protected from hate propaganda in the Criminal Code. "
And tell me how that would affect these laws.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...
Why don't you quote what you think my position is in this thread so that we can be on the same page instead of continuing your obtuse trolling? Here is a hint: it's the 2nd post.
Asking a question is lying now? You are a troll.
What is the difference between outlawing racial slurs vs. using the force of law to make me use your preferred pronoun? How many genders are there again?
You seem intentionally obtuse.
How would you like me to hold your hand? What are you having difficult? Help me help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
incorrectly claims can land him in jail?
I believe one of the consequences could be a fine. If you refuse to pay the fine then you could be jailed: Is the contention Peterson made. Is that true?
If that is true then it is semantics of what you are jailed for; not paying the fine as opposed to the reason for that fine and why that fine was not paid. Yes, technically you will not be jailed for that but you can be if you refuse to pay the fine over principle as Peterson has said.
Is compelled speech acceptable in a society that values free speech?
Is compelled speech acceptable in your opinion?
June 19, 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...