Regardless, I don't think hatred should come into it. I don't care what they think of the person, although I agree that intent (accidents) should be a factor.
Because when members of the dominant culture expressed opinions that minority cultures didn't like all the way up through the 1980s (and often followed those words up with beatings, house burnings, job losses, killings, etc) they were "censored, punished, and ostracized" by their society and contritely agreed never to do it again.
I think those physical crimes sound pretty bad... unlike the words. I'm simply a freedom of speech advocate.
So now that the overall culture is changing to make such behavior unacceptable it is "oversensitivity"?
If it comes to criminalizing words or being overly offended by them, yes.
Until and unless you are on the receiving end of one of those groups you don't really have the position to have a completely informed opinion about those laws.
What? That makes no sense. If anything, if you were part of one of those groups, you'd just be biased.
If someone committed a crime, then convict them for the crime. I don't think their "hatred" of any particular group should ever come into play.
Thus, to drive a suicidal person to suicide is so disgusting, that we have crimes for it.
It's a shame that you might be blamed for someone's suicide (that seriously makes no sense to me) because you previously exchanged words that they didn't like with them.
But people, wake-up, Tyler Clementi's life is OVER. His family's life is DESTROYED.
I wonder why that is? Oh... because he committed suicide.
But who cares about freedom of speech? What if someone's feelings get hurt? Suicide is murder because someone said mean things to them before they killed themselves.
Why exactly does it matter who you commit a crime against? If you kill someone, then I don't think they should arbitrarily decide to put you in prison for a larger amount of time simply because of the color of the victim's skin (or something like that).
You seem like the type of person that might try to defend DRM and draconian laws that hurt innocents. There's literally almost nothing that people can do to stop piracy that won't violent innocent people's rights.
I have no reasonable expectancy that software works on any other platform.
I'm not talking about expecting them to implement features for me. I'm talking about expecting them to not completely cripple the devices that I bought for completely inane and paranoid reasons.
It's also not just the platform owner who suffers from piracy.
Piracy is simply a loss of potential gain. Regardless, I do not think this justifies harming actual customers. They're wasting their time. They will never stop piracy. They can only slightly delay it. Once there is enough interest, they are doomed.
Not to mention the fact that this locked-down garbage harms innocents as well (let's not even talk about removing features that used to be present). Honestly, I see this as about as idiotic as the terrorist paranoia (on a smaller scale, though). Some people are, according to you, criminals? Hurt everyone to try to get rid of them! Who cares about collateral damage? And then some people even go as far to claim that it's perfectly acceptable to harm your customers as long as you're not harming very many of them (OtherOS, supposedly).
Sorry, but no matter what their excuse is, or how much they think (yes, think) they're losing, I'll never think that their proposed solutions are a good thing.
and one of the big reasons they locked this one down.
That'll totally stop the pirates...
Oh, well. They care more about 'stopping' the big, evil game downloaders (who just copy games and cost them nothing) than they do about not hurting their own customers. They're idiots, but so is anyone who buys their products and then complains. They've had ample time to realize just what kind of company Sony (and probably many more, actually) is.
Nope! Instant deal-breaker right there. Rootkits, OtherOS, awful security practices, and caring more about stopping (and failing to do so, I might add) the piracy boogeyman than not harming their own customers.
Sorry to say, but when they screw their customers over again somehow, don't expect any pity. It's obvious what kind of company they are, and it's at least partly your own fault for continuing to buy products from them.
In other words, the situation with that was similar to DRM. "Some people are pirates! That means some people are, *gasp*, copying games! It's the apocalypse! Let's harm legitimate customers by getting rid of features and/or crippling our product in some way because of the piracy boogeyman!"
"Truly free" speech is a nice romantic idea, and might work if everybody was honest and ethical, but the horrible reality is that not everybody is, and "truly free" speech is an irresponsible, dangerous idea.
I didn't actually say that it was a good idea (in that post). I only said that the constitution actually gives no exceptions and that I think we should correct this to more closely follow it.
Before you disagree, consider what you would do if you were being maliciously targeted and slandered on the Internet, and that affected your ability to gain employment.
Perhaps if it was widely known that you could be slandered, people wouldn't be so quick to believe everything they hear like imbeciles.
After all, if slander was legal, you could do it to any employer, as well.
Don't tell me you would accept it "Oh well, it's their right to say these things"
But I did want to tell you that.
and accept the effects of unemployment that are a direct consequence of somebody else's actions.
Yeah. The idiotic employer who believes everything he hears.
Personally, I'm willing to accept not having absolute freedom of speech (although I'd rather have it) if and only if they amend the constitution to list exceptions. As for absolute freedom of speech, I think it might be a nice lesson to imbeciles who decide to believe everything they hear.
It seems like the USian quote from Voltair has a hidden coda: I may not support what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it (as long as you don't actually try to make me do anything to support you)
But then some of them use that quote and then immediately say, "...except if you're accused of being a pedophile/terrorist. Then your speech is no longer free!"
You are playing word games, I assume the right to vote isn't a right either?
What? I'm fairly certain it is. The constitution merely grants the right only to certain people.
Those aren't word games.
The thing is, children are not full citizens
The thing is, this law is pointless censorship. They're trying to restrict the sale of something because they think it's harmful when they don't have any evidence to back that up (and crime statistics point to a different conclusion).
Also, how is punishing people for giving out "speech" (in this case, games) not a violation of someone's freedom of speech? Imagine if the government punished someone for giving out a letter to someone else. This is a good example of that, but they're only punished if they give it out to a certain group. This has nothing to do with the freedom of speech of children (which still exists since the constitution makes no such distinctions no matter what examples of age discrimination you bring up).
Furthermore, while you might view children as subhumans, I do not.
Then why don't they simply call them abilities or something such as that? It appears that having a natural right to do something is not the same as merely having the ability to do something.
Not only that, but I also have the ability to kill innocents. When someone claims that I have a "natural right," I don't think they're merely referring to my ability to do something.
That said, I don't truly believe they will ever stop copyright infringement or anything similar.
Yes, there is. It is called libel, defamation, and harrassment.
Then that's not truly free speech. Some speech is being restricted. Whether you or I think that's good or bad is irrelevant.
But judging from your post, you've never heard of these words and their relationship to the 1st amendment.
No, I've read the first amendment. I've just never seen those words in it.
It is to be balanced with other rights of other people.
There is no right to not be offended (at least not yet), lied about, or any other such thing. Okay, maybe there is, but not specifically mentioned in the constitution as far as I know.
I still think there should be a constitutional amendment to clarify this nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
It does? Is hate crime not a separate crime?
Regardless, I don't think hatred should come into it. I don't care what they think of the person, although I agree that intent (accidents) should be a factor.
Because when members of the dominant culture expressed opinions that minority cultures didn't like all the way up through the 1980s (and often followed those words up with beatings, house burnings, job losses, killings, etc) they were "censored, punished, and ostracized" by their society and contritely agreed never to do it again.
I think those physical crimes sound pretty bad... unlike the words. I'm simply a freedom of speech advocate.
So now that the overall culture is changing to make such behavior unacceptable it is "oversensitivity"?
If it comes to criminalizing words or being overly offended by them, yes.
Until and unless you are on the receiving end of one of those groups you don't really have the position to have a completely informed opinion about those laws.
What? That makes no sense. If anything, if you were part of one of those groups, you'd just be biased.
If someone committed a crime, then convict them for the crime. I don't think their "hatred" of any particular group should ever come into play.
Well, I don't care for thought crimes.
"He doesn't that group of people! Therefore, he should have a harsher punishment for the exact same crime."
Great... so in other words, they're trying to predict the future ("He'll do this again! I know it!") and lock people up based on the results.
I love thought crimes.
But the entire term is subjective.
Thus, to drive a suicidal person to suicide is so disgusting, that we have crimes for it.
It's a shame that you might be blamed for someone's suicide (that seriously makes no sense to me) because you previously exchanged words that they didn't like with them.
Truly a shame.
I was bullied, too. I'm still 100% against political correctness and am for freedom of speech.
But people, wake-up, Tyler Clementi's life is OVER. His family's life is DESTROYED.
I wonder why that is? Oh... because he committed suicide.
But who cares about freedom of speech? What if someone's feelings get hurt? Suicide is murder because someone said mean things to them before they killed themselves.
I think it's teaching people to be oversensitive. "Wow! He expressed an opinion that I don't like! He must be censored, punished, and ostracized!"
It ends up being that you can't say much of anything without fear of you being called racist or something such as that.
Why exactly does it matter who you commit a crime against? If you kill someone, then I don't think they should arbitrarily decide to put you in prison for a larger amount of time simply because of the color of the victim's skin (or something like that).
You seem like the type of person that might try to defend DRM and draconian laws that hurt innocents. There's literally almost nothing that people can do to stop piracy that won't violent innocent people's rights.
I have no reasonable expectancy that software works on any other platform.
I'm not talking about expecting them to implement features for me. I'm talking about expecting them to not completely cripple the devices that I bought for completely inane and paranoid reasons.
It's also not just the platform owner who suffers from piracy.
Piracy is simply a loss of potential gain. Regardless, I do not think this justifies harming actual customers. They're wasting their time. They will never stop piracy. They can only slightly delay it. Once there is enough interest, they are doomed.
Not to mention the fact that this locked-down garbage harms innocents as well (let's not even talk about removing features that used to be present). Honestly, I see this as about as idiotic as the terrorist paranoia (on a smaller scale, though). Some people are, according to you, criminals? Hurt everyone to try to get rid of them! Who cares about collateral damage? And then some people even go as far to claim that it's perfectly acceptable to harm your customers as long as you're not harming very many of them (OtherOS, supposedly).
Sorry, but no matter what their excuse is, or how much they think (yes, think) they're losing, I'll never think that their proposed solutions are a good thing.
Protecting the children is absolutely a necessary thing to be doing
Yes. Sexting. How awful! We must protect them from indecent thoughts! For the children, of course.
and one of the big reasons they locked this one down.
That'll totally stop the pirates...
Oh, well. They care more about 'stopping' the big, evil game downloaders (who just copy games and cost them nothing) than they do about not hurting their own customers. They're idiots, but so is anyone who buys their products and then complains. They've had ample time to realize just what kind of company Sony (and probably many more, actually) is.
Nope! Instant deal-breaker right there. Rootkits, OtherOS, awful security practices, and caring more about stopping (and failing to do so, I might add) the piracy boogeyman than not harming their own customers.
Sorry to say, but when they screw their customers over again somehow, don't expect any pity. It's obvious what kind of company they are, and it's at least partly your own fault for continuing to buy products from them.
In other words, the situation with that was similar to DRM. "Some people are pirates! That means some people are, *gasp*, copying games! It's the apocalypse! Let's harm legitimate customers by getting rid of features and/or crippling our product in some way because of the piracy boogeyman!"
"Truly free" speech is a nice romantic idea, and might work if everybody was honest and ethical, but the horrible reality is that not everybody is, and "truly free" speech is an irresponsible, dangerous idea.
I didn't actually say that it was a good idea (in that post). I only said that the constitution actually gives no exceptions and that I think we should correct this to more closely follow it.
Before you disagree, consider what you would do if you were being maliciously targeted and slandered on the Internet, and that affected your ability to gain employment.
Perhaps if it was widely known that you could be slandered, people wouldn't be so quick to believe everything they hear like imbeciles.
After all, if slander was legal, you could do it to any employer, as well.
Don't tell me you would accept it "Oh well, it's their right to say these things"
But I did want to tell you that.
and accept the effects of unemployment that are a direct consequence of somebody else's actions.
Yeah. The idiotic employer who believes everything he hears.
Personally, I'm willing to accept not having absolute freedom of speech (although I'd rather have it) if and only if they amend the constitution to list exceptions. As for absolute freedom of speech, I think it might be a nice lesson to imbeciles who decide to believe everything they hear.
I'm pretty rational about the whole thing.
That's what just about everyone seems to say...
It seems like the USian quote from Voltair has a hidden coda: I may not support what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it (as long as you don't actually try to make me do anything to support you)
But then some of them use that quote and then immediately say, "...except if you're accused of being a pedophile/terrorist. Then your speech is no longer free!"
and very much equally.
Your opinion.
Excuse me, but your bias and bigotry are showing.
I'm not seeing his bias or bigotry here. Care to explain?
I do think you sound quite arrogant, though.
He... didn't actually say that they were.
It didn't even look like an analogy (and some people don't even know what an analogy is).
You are playing word games, I assume the right to vote isn't a right either?
What? I'm fairly certain it is. The constitution merely grants the right only to certain people.
Those aren't word games.
The thing is, children are not full citizens
The thing is, this law is pointless censorship. They're trying to restrict the sale of something because they think it's harmful when they don't have any evidence to back that up (and crime statistics point to a different conclusion).
Also, how is punishing people for giving out "speech" (in this case, games) not a violation of someone's freedom of speech? Imagine if the government punished someone for giving out a letter to someone else. This is a good example of that, but they're only punished if they give it out to a certain group. This has nothing to do with the freedom of speech of children (which still exists since the constitution makes no such distinctions no matter what examples of age discrimination you bring up).
Furthermore, while you might view children as subhumans, I do not.
Then why don't they simply call them abilities or something such as that? It appears that having a natural right to do something is not the same as merely having the ability to do something.
Not only that, but I also have the ability to kill innocents. When someone claims that I have a "natural right," I don't think they're merely referring to my ability to do something.
That said, I don't truly believe they will ever stop copyright infringement or anything similar.
Yes, there is. It is called libel, defamation, and harrassment.
Then that's not truly free speech. Some speech is being restricted. Whether you or I think that's good or bad is irrelevant.
But judging from your post, you've never heard of these words and their relationship to the 1st amendment.
No, I've read the first amendment. I've just never seen those words in it.
It is to be balanced with other rights of other people.
There is no right to not be offended (at least not yet), lied about, or any other such thing. Okay, maybe there is, but not specifically mentioned in the constitution as far as I know.
I still think there should be a constitutional amendment to clarify this nonsense.