Check out this article [theregister.co.uk]. A VW dealership is suing for a post on a message board. Both the poster and the message board have been named in the trial.
Oh, by the way, that thread's still active, and now has nearly one thousand posts on it--of course they're overwhelmingly in favor of the defendants in the suit...
What honesty and loyalty have to do with sex and pornography I have no frickin' idea...(undercover cops don't have to be honest with hookers, despite the legends to the contrary...)
Besides, whether Yahoo! endorses porn or not is irrelevant to me...I can find my share of porn on the web without even querying Yahoo!'s database...
Though it is unfortunate that they've decided to remove the otherwise easily accessible adult grouping of groups, so now you have to find "Dry Elbow Fetish" by URL...<sarcasm>but hey, it's for the children, ain't it?</sarcasm>
The US might have some sort of a "lead" concerning free speech, but how is brandishing a swastika different from insulting someone (I'm of course supposing american law doesn't freely allow you to insult someone)?
Actually, you can insult someone, as long as the insult is not obscene or slanders the target. Comedians do it quite a bit over here...But, as you may know from some of the kooky lawsuits presented here, criminality of speech does not pertain to civil lawsuits. In other words, if you insult someone in public to their face, you can be expected to be presented with a rather hefty lawsuit somewhere down the line, even if the insult was allowed under American free speech laws.
Meanwhile, on the swastika issue, you're talking about the country that has a state that still flies the Confederate battle flag at its capitol building...and groups like the neo-Nazis and the KKK still in existence, and, though not formally recognized by the government, allowed to convene in cities around the country and spread their messages...hell, a few years ago, we had an independent presidential candidate who was Grand Wizard of the KKK, if that tells you anything...
It's "bad" for a foreign government to dictate what US citizens may publish -- but it's "OK" to sentence a foreign national to life in prison for a crime committed in another country (vis: the Saudi recently sentenced in New York for the bombing in Kenya).
If I remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Saudi bombed a U.S. Embassy in Kenya. And if I recall, and again correct me if I'm wrong, international law declares land reserved for embassies of a country to be actual land of that country, so where the U.S. embassy is is U.S. soil. Thus the bomber would have bombed U.S. soil, thereby being subject to U.S. laws...
However, if he had bombed a Kenyan building that had nothing to do with the U.S...then it would be wrong to extradite him to the U.S.
Ah, unAmerican. The world's first one-word oxymoron. Why, in a land of supposedly free speech and thought, was a committee created to expunge all those that thought differently than an American should think? Why, in a land where anyone can supposedly succeed, do only the rich and famous have any sway? Why, in a land that is supposedly so markedly different than anywhere else in the world, do people get persecuted for being against the norm? And why, in a land where an artist can own any piece he or she creates, does an artist have no control over who markets his or her art?
I believe murder was invented long before the gun. Hunters in the Stone Age could get by without propelling a projectile at high speed, and in the Middle Ages the preferred killing weapon was the knife.
If Klebold and Harris had substituted "The Hundred Years War" for "Doom" in their tapes before they decided to destroy their schoolmates' lives, would the government then decide to try and delete all traces of the Hundred Years War from history books? Like the gun, murder was around long before the video game. If all guns and suddenly disappeared, murder by sharp object would skyrocket; if video games suddenly disappeared, real-life murder would likely go up.
who should have control over the process
Teachers, School Committee, PTA. Not pot-smoking college protest junkies and not Jon Katz.
Good point. Problem is, none of the above are even close to having control. It's all in the hands of the government and a few choice corporations, and they're preying on school's attempts to "protect the children."
In a perfect world, benevolent corporations would give specific-site-blocking programs to schools for free, and work with the schools to block all that which is inappropriate and allow all that is appropriate. But it's not, so greedy corporations are selling general-site-blocking programs to schools for thousands of dollars each, leaving the schools with shoddy software that blocks legitimate breast-cancer reasearch and Holocaust sites while allowing clever programmers who use no filthy language to slip through the cracks. Then the corporations have the nerve to advertise on sites that their blockers approve of.
Well, how does anyone know this year is the "real" millenium? The current calendar hasn't been used for even close to two thousand years, and in fact the Gregorian calendar was based upon when the priests *thought* Jesus was born...turns out they were off by about three or four years...so the "milennium"...if there is one to celebrate...happened in 1998, because of these errors...
And of course, the millenium is only good for those who celebrate Christianity...it's 5761 on the Jewish calendar, and the new year in Jewish society is celebrated in September. And it's 1421 on the Muslim Calendar which started in 622 A.D. on the Gregorian calendar and the Muslim goes faster than the Gregorian year. So all this talk about the "real milennium" is not only flawed, but matters only to devout Christians of all faiths and the media.
I applaud your rationale for attempting to get both the government and the employer away from healthcare. The problem is...who's left?
Even though healthcare in this situation would not be controlled by employers, it would still be controlled by big business. This is because, if the government is left completely out of it, healthcare would be forced to survive on its own...thus giving us basically what we have now...profit margin over basic needs. Healthcare would be a "big business" on its own.
Socialism is right now the best bet, the "least of all evils." It makes healthcare centralized and uniform. The only problem is that it would be the government that runs it. So instead of profit margin, it will be parisanism over basic needs. Greed is unnatural; disagreements are natural. I'd prefer the government disagreements over the private greed. But I'm saying right now: There is no adequate way any country can extricate government and business from managed care.
Think about it. If my 140 lb, white ass was walking around in South Central LA, screaming "Die, Nigger, die" at the top of my lungs would you not place some of the blame on me if I got my ass kicked?
Not at all the same analogy. A more fitting analogy is hiring someone to shoot your boss, or paying a hacker to "adjust" your salary. And of course, in both cases, you rat on the shooter or hacker before you pay them.
Most definitely the teacher should be held accountable... Regardless of whether a computer is like a house or not, if I posses an item and I challenge you to remove it from my possession, I can't cry foul if you accomplish the stated goal.
Of course, the teacher did not possess the system. Thus he is an accomplice to a crime for challenging someone else to compromise a system he did not possess.
Actually, it sounds as if you're saying "because it's on TV, it's absolutely wrong."
(A better comparison would be the BBC doing a documentary about the U.S. Civil War. The BBC is an impartial party seeing the points of view of the North and South viewpoints. But, because they're the BBC, a.k.a "media," you'll dismiss them out of hand, right?)
Then again, it's hard to accept a guy who criticizes spelling while not even reading the stuff in the post. By the way, there should be a comma after "himself", and the second sentence is a fragment.
Slashdot Mirror
Check out this article [theregister.co.uk]. A VW dealership is suing for a post on a message board. Both the poster and the message board have been named in the trial.
Oh, by the way, that thread's still active, and now has nearly one thousand posts on it--of course they're overwhelmingly in favor of the defendants in the suit...
What honesty and loyalty have to do with sex and pornography I have no frickin' idea...(undercover cops don't have to be honest with hookers, despite the legends to the contrary...)
Besides, whether Yahoo! endorses porn or not is irrelevant to me...I can find my share of porn on the web without even querying Yahoo!'s database...
Though it is unfortunate that they've decided to remove the otherwise easily accessible adult grouping of groups, so now you have to find "Dry Elbow Fetish" by URL...<sarcasm>but hey, it's for the children, ain't it?</sarcasm>
The US might have some sort of a "lead" concerning free speech, but how is brandishing a swastika different from insulting someone (I'm of course supposing american law doesn't freely allow you to insult someone)?
Actually, you can insult someone, as long as the insult is not obscene or slanders the target. Comedians do it quite a bit over here...But, as you may know from some of the kooky lawsuits presented here, criminality of speech does not pertain to civil lawsuits. In other words, if you insult someone in public to their face, you can be expected to be presented with a rather hefty lawsuit somewhere down the line, even if the insult was allowed under American free speech laws.
Meanwhile, on the swastika issue, you're talking about the country that has a state that still flies the Confederate battle flag at its capitol building...and groups like the neo-Nazis and the KKK still in existence, and, though not formally recognized by the government, allowed to convene in cities around the country and spread their messages...hell, a few years ago, we had an independent presidential candidate who was Grand Wizard of the KKK, if that tells you anything...
It's "bad" for a foreign government to dictate what US citizens may publish -- but it's "OK" to sentence a foreign national to life in prison for a crime committed in another country (vis: the Saudi recently sentenced in New York for the bombing in Kenya).
If I remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, the Saudi bombed a U.S. Embassy in Kenya. And if I recall, and again correct me if I'm wrong, international law declares land reserved for embassies of a country to be actual land of that country, so where the U.S. embassy is is U.S. soil. Thus the bomber would have bombed U.S. soil, thereby being subject to U.S. laws...
However, if he had bombed a Kenyan building that had nothing to do with the U.S...then it would be wrong to extradite him to the U.S.
Ah, unAmerican. The world's first one-word oxymoron. Why, in a land of supposedly free speech and thought, was a committee created to expunge all those that thought differently than an American should think? Why, in a land where anyone can supposedly succeed, do only the rich and famous have any sway? Why, in a land that is supposedly so markedly different than anywhere else in the world, do people get persecuted for being against the norm? And why, in a land where an artist can own any piece he or she creates, does an artist have no control over who markets his or her art?
Thank you, Mr. Troll, you have brightened my day.
I believe murder was invented long before the gun. Hunters in the Stone Age could get by without propelling a projectile at high speed, and in the Middle Ages the preferred killing weapon was the knife.
If Klebold and Harris had substituted "The Hundred Years War" for "Doom" in their tapes before they decided to destroy their schoolmates' lives, would the government then decide to try and delete all traces of the Hundred Years War from history books? Like the gun, murder was around long before the video game. If all guns and suddenly disappeared, murder by sharp object would skyrocket; if video games suddenly disappeared, real-life murder would likely go up.
who should have control over the process
Teachers, School Committee, PTA. Not pot-smoking college protest junkies and not Jon Katz.
Good point. Problem is, none of the above are even close to having control. It's all in the hands of the government and a few choice corporations, and they're preying on school's attempts to "protect the children."
In a perfect world, benevolent corporations would give specific-site-blocking programs to schools for free, and work with the schools to block all that which is inappropriate and allow all that is appropriate. But it's not, so greedy corporations are selling general-site-blocking programs to schools for thousands of dollars each, leaving the schools with shoddy software that blocks legitimate breast-cancer reasearch and Holocaust sites while allowing clever programmers who use no filthy language to slip through the cracks. Then the corporations have the nerve to advertise on sites that their blockers approve of.
Well, how does anyone know this year is the "real" millenium? The current calendar hasn't been used for even close to two thousand years, and in fact the Gregorian calendar was based upon when the priests *thought* Jesus was born...turns out they were off by about three or four years...so the "milennium"...if there is one to celebrate...happened in 1998, because of these errors... And of course, the millenium is only good for those who celebrate Christianity...it's 5761 on the Jewish calendar, and the new year in Jewish society is celebrated in September. And it's 1421 on the Muslim Calendar which started in 622 A.D. on the Gregorian calendar and the Muslim goes faster than the Gregorian year. So all this talk about the "real milennium" is not only flawed, but matters only to devout Christians of all faiths and the media.
I applaud your rationale for attempting to get both the government and the employer away from healthcare. The problem is...who's left?
Even though healthcare in this situation would not be controlled by employers, it would still be controlled by big business. This is because, if the government is left completely out of it, healthcare would be forced to survive on its own...thus giving us basically what we have now...profit margin over basic needs. Healthcare would be a "big business" on its own.
Socialism is right now the best bet, the "least of all evils." It makes healthcare centralized and uniform. The only problem is that it would be the government that runs it. So instead of profit margin, it will be parisanism over basic needs. Greed is unnatural; disagreements are natural. I'd prefer the government disagreements over the private greed. But I'm saying right now: There is no adequate way any country can extricate government and business from managed care.
Think about it. If my 140 lb, white ass was walking around in South Central LA, screaming "Die, Nigger, die" at the top of my lungs would you not place some of the blame on me if I got my ass kicked?
Not at all the same analogy. A more fitting analogy is hiring someone to shoot your boss, or paying a hacker to "adjust" your salary. And of course, in both cases, you rat on the shooter or hacker before you pay them.
Most definitely the teacher should be held accountable... Regardless of whether a computer is like a house or not, if I posses an item and I challenge you to remove it from my possession, I can't cry foul if you accomplish the stated goal.
Of course, the teacher did not possess the system. Thus he is an accomplice to a crime for challenging someone else to compromise a system he did not possess.
Actually, it sounds as if you're saying "because it's on TV, it's absolutely wrong."
(A better comparison would be the BBC doing a documentary about the U.S. Civil War. The BBC is an impartial party seeing the points of view of the North and South viewpoints. But, because they're the BBC, a.k.a "media," you'll dismiss them out of hand, right?)
Then again, it's hard to accept a guy who criticizes spelling while not even reading the stuff in the post. By the way, there should be a comma after "himself", and the second sentence is a fragment.