An interesting distinction on one level, but it misidentifies the act of censorship itself. Even if it might be argued that the original version is available elsewhere, the measure of censorship isn't whether or not the original work can still be seen. The act of editing out of the film content that the director put there is, in and of itself, censorship.
If the editors of slashdot decided to remove one of the paragraphs from your post so that none of us could see it then that would be censorship. If I decide to print out one of the paragraphs from your post and read just that one alone then that is not censorship.
The term "censorship" at least strongly implies some authority denying people the right/ability to view something that they might otherwise choose to. You seem to be using it to mean the opposite, the act of someone actuvely choosing what they want to read / view. If that's what you mean by censorship then censorship, in the rather unusual sense that you use the word, is a good thing.
By your token, because I buy a book, I should therefore own all the contents of the book.
Yes, that's right. If I buy a book and I want to tear out pages or cross through the boring bits or color in the pictures or fold over the corners where the dirty bits are, or write in the margin why the author was wrong... yes, I can do all that because it's my book.
This is the reason that copyright law exists--to protect the people who create things.
Copyright law prevents me from copying your works, it doesn't (or shouldn't) stop me tearing out the pages in copies made with your permission and purchased by me.
Cleanflicks obviously has to be making a profit off of this, or else they wouldn't be in business. (Well, one assumes, though you can never tell anymore.) If they're making a profit, they're making that profit because of the work of the people who created the movies... while not respecting that those people created a specific vision.
That's right, just like I can buy a car, respray it, replace the seats and resell it. Oh no, profiting without respecting a 'specific vision' how terrible. If you don't want me to modify a car don't sell it to me, clear?
Yes, sometimes that vision includes violence. You have plenty right to go see something else.
Yes, including the right to watch the bits of this I like and not the bits I don't.
Ooh, I know. I'm going to go buy a bunch of big long books and cut out all the violence and sex and maybe the boring passages, too, and re-sell them. Of course, I'm not going to stop to ask the author what they think of this; it's my right to free speech, right?
Yes, go ahead.
Forget the rights of the original creator
No, they keep all their rights intact. What's that got to do with you mutilating the books you own?
Forget, for that matter, their feelings, or that they're even human beings at all, because it's so much easier to think of them as the Evil Movie Industry whose sex and violence are so damaging to our precious little children.
What are you on? This has got nothing to do with them being evil. By all means respect their feelings BUT people really really are entitled to buy books and burn them specifically to hurt the feelings of the author if they want to. No, not pleasant, but hard to believe though it may be hurting people's feelings isn't a crime and I hope it never will be.
In personal use, you're not making money for doing it. You do it for yourself, your family, sure. When you start doing it to make a buck, then you're doing the very thing that copyright law is designed to prevent.
Rubbish. Copyright law was about protecting an income stream in order to encourage the creation of works. It was never about protecting people's feelings from people who were making money without "respecting their vision". The idea is completely without foundation.
That would be fair comment if the crew generally complied with the prime directive but in practice it got a lot of lip service whilst the crew endlessly interfered anyway. Somteimes they came up with weak justifications and sometimes they didn't bother. Seems pretty realistic to me.
Sorry to make a second reply but as an addendum... picking up specifically on the remorse element, possibly what you feel is that manslaughter + big show of remorse might reasonably, on a widespread enough basis to significantly affect the average, receive a lower sentence than copyright violation without big show of remorse?
Okay. I'm trying to understand what you're saying and I don't think my first attempt was too succesful:)
Are you saying that in this case you think the judge perceived there to be factors present that made this particular case of copyright violation merit a harsher sentence than an "average" violent offense, and the term you or they use for this is "making an example of them"? If so then do you have any insight into what those factors might be? If that is what you meant then it seems to me that that brings us back to our starting point, based on the known facts it seems to me that there's no way you could justify a higher penalty for this than for cases of e.g. mansalughter or rape. You might feel otherwise of course.
Or are you saying that in your opinion the judiciary randomly (or based on some criteria other than the details of the crime) select some criminals and give them much harsher sentences than they otherwise would, and the term you or they use for that is "making an example of them"? If so then do you think this can be justified?
Or are you saying something else that's still going over my head?
I suspect the judge was making an example of him. If a judge was making an example of a rapist or killer, what sort of sentence would you expect? Rather more than 33 months methinks...
Surely that's the point. Most people would probably feel that judges should be "making examples" of rapists and killers to a far greater degree than they should copyright violators.
Just saying the judge was "making an example" of him in no way explains or justifies why he would be given a more severe sentence than the average for manslaughter.
Along those same lines. Too much knowledge can take away free will. If man knew for a fact that God exists (let say once a year God went on Larry King Live), it would effectively take away our ability to choose for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. It would all be spelled out clearly, presenting you with the choice between 1) do this and get big reward 2) do this and burn in hell.
Firstly, that clearly wouldn't have any effect on our ability to choose right and wrong. Clearly if God on Larry King Live says "the right thing to do is X; if you don't do X then you will burn in hell" then people would still apply their moral judgment, would still decide whether X is right or wrong. Some would agree with the pronouncement and some disagree. Those of good conscience would continue to do what they perceive as right even if they did go on to burn in hell for it. Less moral individuals would continue to look out for themselves, presumably endeavouring to avoid hell if they can.
Secondly, as far as I can tell there really are people who really do believe that the Christian god exists. So far as I understand biblical teachings these are the ones that are supposed to get saved and yet you're saying that their belief actually renders them incapable of choosing right or wrong. Why would it be so terrible then if everyone else was in that same position?
The licenses page on gnu.org does not mention X11 or BSD, and Stallman (as GNU spokesman) has vocally stated that these are not "free" software.
It's difficult to see how anyone could have even glanced at the licenses page and thought that what you said is true. The X11 is the first licence listed after the GNU licences, not easy to miss. In future if you're going to lie you might find it easier to fool people if you pick lies that aren't quite so easy to refute.
Careful. We all believe a bunch of things we aren't even aware of, on the basis of no evidence whatever. Why should we discount religeous beliefs particularly?
Doubtless many of the things I believe are wrong, and many of them I presumably believe on the basis of poor reasoning or reasoning that I would be able to provide but that doesn't mean I can just pick things to believe.
I can't just decide that I think there really are fairies living at the bottom of my garden or an invisible dragon living in my cellar. I can mouth the words, but I don't actually consider either to be true. The same, for me, goes for gods.
I'm not discounting religious beliefs particularly. As I say, dragons, fairies, Father Christmas, and many many more things I do not believe to truly exist. I'm honestly not trying to belittle your religion here just saying that to me there are many things that I do not believe to exist and to consider otherwise I'd need to be provided with some evidence. I can't just pick something I'll believe in today.
Or to modify your words a little:
Careful. we all disbelieve a bunch of stuff because we see no evidence for it whatsoever. Why should we make religion an exception in particular? (and more to the point, how can we? just grit your teeth and believe it even if you don't? how?)
Re:Mosfet.org updated about why this is bad
on
KDE Gets The Hat
·
· Score: 1
But I _explicitly_ chose to _not_ use the default (which is GNOME) but instead chose explicitly to use KDE which _should_ also make Konqueror my default browser!
Why? If you prefer a particular browser then you can choose it regardless of which desktop you're on. And if you like a particular desktop you can choose it regardless of which browser you chose. Why should switching one mess up the other?
So you'd be happy if someone forked the kernel forked?
Sorry to break it to you but lots of people fork the kernel. I doubt that that's a particular source of joy in the previous poster's life but I doubt he has a problem with it either.
Maybe that's the reason there are so many financially poor scientists in Russia.
That's right, it's a little known fact that American scientists were living in poverty prior to the introduction of the DMCA a few years ago. Fortunately this miraculous Act has turned that around which is why you see so few scientists starving on the street these days.
What you might not have realised is that DMCA also washes clothes whiter.
You've decided to suck Ximian's proverbial teet. Hopefully they're never change anything and make you pay for it.
What are you babbling about?
Firstly, most Linux users get their distribution from a company e.g. Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, etc.
Secondly even those that don't generally get their computers from companies and, yes, pay for them, get their electricity from companies and, yes, pay for it, get their food from companies and, yes, pay for it... most of us take this stuff pretty much in out stride.
There's a big difference between blocking a site that contains information about current events, capitalism, representative government, Martin Luther King, or Jesus Christ and blocking a site that allows and encourages the acquisition of illegally obtained (without owners' permission) products.
A difference which can be entirely removed by the simple expedient of the Chinese government introducing a law that gives them ownership of all information about current events, capitalism, representative government, Martin Luther King and Jesus Christ.
I think they are refering to the "Listen4ever" part being in English. Not necessarily U.S. but probably not Chinese. Still, when did English become a U.S. only language?
There are more students of English in China than there are people in the United States.
(According to "Mother Tongue" by Bill Bryson, ISBN 0-14-014305-X though admittedly he doesn't give any cite to back up his claim).
Depends. If the airlines KNEW you were flying to california to kill someone and said or did nothing.... (ISP's have logs, and know about sites like listen4ever...)
So you mean that if I phone up the airlines and tell them that one of their passengers is planning on killing someone in California you think that they should stop that person from travelling rather than suggest that I talk to the police? I think that this is ridiculous.
Can someone explain this to me. Their people are starving, yet their worried about their loss of exports to Europe? This is not about the crops, but they seemed to be more worried about their money than their people, at least that is the view i get.
Okay, suppose you're struggling to feed your family. Your salary just isn't enough. Things are getting worse. Then someone kindly offers you charity, they'll feed your family today but you'll lose your job and not be able to feed your family at all for the future. Does refusing mean that you're more worried about the money than about your family?
And yet this is the same Nominet who is riding rough shod over user's objections [nominet-no.co.uk] to showing full addresses and phone numbers on whois on all of.uk (including.me.uk - supposed to be for individuals), the same nominet who has a shed load of money in the bank [google.com], who don't publish accounts [google.com] and has hidden companies [google.com],
Showing full contact details on whois seems perfectly reasonable. In fact I thought this was standard practice although perhaps I was mistaken. Certainly it's common in other forms of public register.
Your link re having "a shed load of money in the bank" makes no reference at all to the amount of money they have in the bank. I guess you meant to use a different link here because you seem to have used the same one three times. How much is "a shed load" in this case?
It's quite common for non-profit companies to be limited by guarantee. I don't think there's anything odd about that. The link you gave (again it's the one that's used multiple times so probably just a mistake) doesn't give any information on why you regard them as "hidden", posibly you could provide the correct link?
the same nominet who can take 4 months to respond to emails, and who, in my case took 2.5 years to transfer a domain I purchased into my name.
Well those are serious complaints. I don't understand why you made such a big deal over the earlier points in comparison.
I put it to you that if anyone actaully does make backups of their PS game, they are an anal freak.
But being an anal freak is not in itself illegal yet.
There is a massive difference between "the only reason to mod a ps is to play pirate games" and "the only reason to mod a ps is to play pirate games unless you have a personality that I will sneer at".
Elwood Maneer, 46, was charged with making terrorist threats and disorderly conduct, said Philadelphia police spokesman Cpl. Jim Pauley, who would not disclose what was said. "I don't have the exact words," Pauley said. "We're just saying he made an inappropriate comment. We're not going to get into exactly what he said."
In fact, the policeman's words are obviously untrue. He says "We're just saying he made an inappropriate comment" when they are actually charging him with "making terrorist threats and disorderly conduct".
Are we seriously expected to believe that they can't tell the difference between those two things?
It seems a reasonable assumption that if they're "not going to get into exactly what he said" that what he "exactly said" was either so innoucuous as to be embarrassing to admit or else that they really honestly don't care what he said... which would be bizarre as well as frightening.
The only allegation is that he said something, and they're not going to "get into" what it was?
Hardly absurd. It *is* the law. We believe in rule of law here on Planet Earth, and that means that we obey the laws until such time as those laws are changed.
Your planet might be very nice but it doesn't sound much like Earth. Here we have people, not robots, and in general they follow their consciences plus consider the consequences to them of their actions (considering the consequences to others of course is part of folowing their consciences).
If people don't think that something is wrong and don't think the potential penalty outweighs the advantage then generally the fact that it's illegal will be at most a minor consideration.
For example, a typical individual will probably be unwilling to commit murder, both on grounds that they view it as immoral and, if they need to think beyond that, that the consequences of being caught are severe. In contrast, they will most likely be happy to park illegally if it's convenient and they don't expect to get caught. Even with a high likelihood of being caught they may consider the likely penalty to be low enough not to deter them. You should be able to find lots more examples of your own, just look around.
If you're familiar with our legal systems at all you'll know the prominent part that penalties play. This is precisely because just making it illegal won't stop it happening.
(If you feel like living without rule of law, then by all means show up at my door so I can beat the @$$# out of you.;) I mean, not doing so would just be obeying a silly law, right?)
I think this more than anything suggests that you have real problems. If committing random acts of violence against you were made lawful I wouldn't want to do it. For many of us not beating people up is not just obeying a law, silly or otherwise. However, if the only thing keeping you in check is your respect for law then I can see how important it is that you retain that and I regret now anything I've said that might cause you to waver in that.
Have fun on your planet, just try not to confuse it with Earth again. It's really very different.
But I have yet to find a single person that thinks it's "grey"... Everybody knows it's wrong, but they just don't care.
Your experience is obviously different to mine. I agree that people don't generally regard it as "grey" but whilst everybody appreciates that it's illegal very few consider it to be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
An interesting distinction on one level, but it misidentifies the act of censorship itself. Even if it might be argued that the original version is available elsewhere, the measure of censorship isn't whether or not the original work can still be seen. The act of editing out of the film content that the director put there is, in and of itself, censorship.
If the editors of slashdot decided to remove one of the paragraphs from your post so that none of us could see it then that would be censorship. If I decide to print out one of the paragraphs from your post and read just that one alone then that is not censorship.
The term "censorship" at least strongly implies some authority denying people the right/ability to view something that they might otherwise choose to. You seem to be using it to mean the opposite, the act of someone actuvely choosing what they want to read / view. If that's what you mean by censorship then censorship, in the rather unusual sense that you use the word, is a good thing.
By your token, because I buy a book, I should therefore own all the contents of the book.
Yes, that's right. If I buy a book and I want to tear out pages or cross through the boring bits or color in the pictures or fold over the corners where the dirty bits are, or write in the margin why the author was wrong... yes, I can do all that because it's my book.
This is the reason that copyright law exists--to protect the people who create things.
Copyright law prevents me from copying your works, it doesn't (or shouldn't) stop me tearing out the pages in copies made with your permission and purchased by me.
Cleanflicks obviously has to be making a profit off of this, or else they wouldn't be in business. (Well, one assumes, though you can never tell anymore.) If they're making a profit, they're making that profit because of the work of the people who created the movies... while not respecting that those people created a specific vision.
That's right, just like I can buy a car, respray it, replace the seats and resell it. Oh no, profiting without respecting a 'specific vision' how terrible. If you don't want me to modify a car don't sell it to me, clear?
Yes, sometimes that vision includes violence. You have plenty right to go see something else.
Yes, including the right to watch the bits of this I like and not the bits I don't.
Ooh, I know. I'm going to go buy a bunch of big long books and cut out all the violence and sex and maybe the boring passages, too, and re-sell them. Of course, I'm not going to stop to ask the author what they think of this; it's my right to free speech, right?
Yes, go ahead.
Forget the rights of the original creator
No, they keep all their rights intact. What's that got to do with you mutilating the books you own?
Forget, for that matter, their feelings, or that they're even human beings at all, because it's so much easier to think of them as the Evil Movie Industry whose sex and violence are so damaging to our precious little children.
What are you on? This has got nothing to do with them being evil. By all means respect their feelings BUT people really really are entitled to buy books and burn them specifically to hurt the feelings of the author if they want to. No, not pleasant, but hard to believe though it may be hurting people's feelings isn't a crime and I hope it never will be.
In personal use, you're not making money for doing it. You do it for yourself, your family, sure. When you start doing it to make a buck, then you're doing the very thing that copyright law is designed to prevent.
Rubbish. Copyright law was about protecting an income stream in order to encourage the creation of works. It was never about protecting people's feelings from people who were making money without
"respecting their vision". The idea is completely without foundation.
That would be fair comment if the crew generally complied with the prime directive but in practice it got a lot of lip service whilst the crew endlessly interfered anyway. Somteimes they came up with weak justifications and sometimes they didn't bother. Seems pretty realistic to me.
Sorry to make a second reply but as an addendum... picking up specifically on the remorse element, possibly what you feel is that manslaughter + big show of remorse might reasonably, on a widespread enough basis to significantly affect the average, receive a lower sentence than copyright violation without big show of remorse?
Okay. I'm trying to understand what you're saying and I don't think my first attempt was too succesful :)
Are you saying that in this case you think the judge perceived there to be factors present that made this particular case of copyright violation merit a harsher sentence than an "average" violent offense, and the term you or they use for this is "making an example of them"? If so then do you have any insight into what those factors might be? If that is what you meant then it seems to me that that brings us back to our starting point, based on the known facts it seems to me that there's no way you could justify a higher penalty for this than for cases of e.g. mansalughter or rape. You might feel otherwise of course.
Or are you saying that in your opinion the judiciary randomly (or based on some criteria other than the details of the crime) select some criminals and give them much harsher sentences than they otherwise would, and the term you or they use for that is "making an example of them"? If so then do you think this can be justified?
Or are you saying something else that's still going over my head?
I suspect the judge was making an example of him. If a judge was making an example of a rapist or killer, what sort of sentence would you expect? Rather more than 33 months methinks...
Surely that's the point. Most people would probably feel that judges should be "making examples" of rapists and killers to a far greater degree than they should copyright violators.
Just saying the judge was "making an example" of him in no way explains or justifies why he would be given a more severe sentence than the average for manslaughter.
Along those same lines. Too much knowledge can take away free will. If man knew for a fact that God exists (let say once a year God went on Larry King Live), it would effectively take away our ability to choose for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. It would all be spelled out clearly, presenting you with the choice between 1) do this and get big reward 2) do this and burn in hell.
Firstly, that clearly wouldn't have any effect on our ability to choose right and wrong. Clearly if God on Larry King Live says "the right thing to do is X; if you don't do X then you will burn in hell" then people would still apply their moral judgment, would still decide whether X is right or wrong. Some would agree with the pronouncement and some disagree. Those of good conscience would continue to do what they perceive as right even if they did go on to burn in hell for it. Less moral individuals would continue to look out for themselves, presumably endeavouring to avoid hell if they can.
Secondly, as far as I can tell there really are people who really do believe that the Christian god exists. So far as I understand biblical teachings these are the ones that are supposed to get saved and yet you're saying that their belief actually renders them incapable of choosing right or wrong. Why would it be so terrible then if everyone else was in that same position?
The licenses page on gnu.org does not mention X11 or BSD, and Stallman (as GNU spokesman) has vocally stated that these are not "free" software.
It's difficult to see how anyone could have even glanced at the licenses page and thought that what you said is true. The X11 is the first licence listed after the GNU licences, not easy to miss. In future if you're going to lie you might find it easier to fool people if you pick lies that aren't quite so easy to refute.
HTH
Careful. We all believe a bunch of things we aren't even aware of, on the basis of no evidence whatever. Why should we discount religeous beliefs particularly?
Doubtless many of the things I believe are wrong, and many of them I presumably believe on the basis of poor reasoning or reasoning that I would be able to provide but that doesn't mean I can just pick things to believe.
I can't just decide that I think there really are fairies living at the bottom of my garden or an invisible dragon living in my cellar. I can mouth the words, but I don't actually consider either to be true. The same, for me, goes for gods.
I'm not discounting religious beliefs particularly. As I say, dragons, fairies, Father Christmas, and many many more things I do not believe to truly exist. I'm honestly not trying to belittle your religion here just saying that to me there are many things that I do not believe to exist and to consider otherwise I'd need to be provided with some evidence. I can't just pick something I'll believe in today.
Or to modify your words a little:
Careful. we all disbelieve a bunch of stuff because we see no evidence for it whatsoever. Why should we make religion an exception in particular? (and more to the point, how can we? just grit your teeth and believe it even if you don't? how?)
But I _explicitly_ chose to _not_ use the default (which is GNOME) but instead chose explicitly to use KDE which _should_ also make Konqueror my default browser!
Why? If you prefer a particular browser then you can choose it regardless of which desktop you're on. And if you like a particular desktop you can choose it regardless of which browser you chose. Why should switching one mess up the other?
Konqueror is there if you wish to use it.
So you'd be happy if someone forked the kernel forked?
Sorry to break it to you but lots of people fork the kernel. I doubt that that's a particular source of joy in the previous poster's life but I doubt he has a problem with it either.
Maybe that's the reason there are so many financially poor scientists in Russia.
That's right, it's a little known fact that American scientists were living in poverty prior to the introduction of the DMCA a few years ago. Fortunately this miraculous Act has turned that around which is why you see so few scientists starving on the street these days.
What you might not have realised is that DMCA also washes clothes whiter.
Ximian is a company.
True.
Gnome and KDE are not.
True
You've decided to suck Ximian's proverbial teet. Hopefully they're never change anything and make you pay for it.
What are you babbling about?
Firstly, most Linux users get their distribution from a company e.g. Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, etc.
Secondly even those that don't generally get their computers from companies and, yes, pay for them, get their electricity from companies and, yes, pay for it, get their food from companies and, yes, pay for it... most of us take this stuff pretty much in out stride.
To compare the US and Nazi Germany is simply the height of insanity.
Agreed, doesn't he know what will happen when the Department of Homeland Security hear he said that?
There's a big difference between blocking a site that contains information about current events, capitalism, representative government, Martin Luther King, or Jesus Christ and blocking a site that allows and encourages the acquisition of illegally obtained (without owners' permission) products.
A difference which can be entirely removed by the simple expedient of the Chinese government introducing a law that gives them ownership of all information about current events, capitalism, representative government, Martin Luther King and Jesus Christ.
I think they are refering to the "Listen4ever" part being in English. Not necessarily U.S. but probably not Chinese. Still, when did English become a U.S. only language?
There are more students of English in China than there are people in the United States.
(According to "Mother Tongue" by Bill Bryson, ISBN 0-14-014305-X though admittedly he doesn't give any cite to back up his claim).
Depends. If the airlines KNEW you were flying to california to kill someone and said or did nothing.... (ISP's have logs, and know about sites like listen4ever...)
So you mean that if I phone up the airlines and tell them that one of their passengers is planning on killing someone in California you think that they should stop that person from travelling rather than suggest that I talk to the police? I think that this is ridiculous.
Can someone explain this to me. Their people are starving, yet their worried about their loss of exports to Europe? This is not about the crops, but they seemed to be more worried about their money than their people, at least that is the view i get.
Okay, suppose you're struggling to feed your family. Your salary just isn't enough. Things are getting worse. Then someone kindly offers you charity, they'll feed your family today but you'll lose your job and not be able to feed your family at all for the future. Does refusing mean that you're more worried about the money than about your family?
And yet this is the same Nominet who is riding rough shod over user's objections [nominet-no.co.uk] to showing full addresses and phone numbers on whois on all of .uk (including .me.uk - supposed to be for individuals), the same nominet who has a shed load of money in the bank [google.com], who don't publish accounts [google.com] and has hidden companies [google.com],
Showing full contact details on whois seems perfectly reasonable. In fact I thought this was standard practice although perhaps I was mistaken. Certainly it's common in other forms of public register.
Your link re having "a shed load of money in the bank" makes no reference at all to the amount of money they have in the bank. I guess you meant to use a different link here because you seem to have used the same one three times. How much is "a shed load" in this case?
It's quite common for non-profit companies to be limited by guarantee. I don't think there's anything odd about that. The link you gave (again it's the one that's used multiple times so probably just a mistake) doesn't give any information on why you regard them as "hidden", posibly you could provide the correct link?
the same nominet who can take 4 months to respond to emails, and who, in my case took 2.5 years to transfer a domain I purchased into my name.
Well those are serious complaints. I don't understand why you made such a big deal over the earlier points in comparison.
I put it to you that if anyone actaully does make backups of their PS game, they are an anal freak.
But being an anal freak is not in itself illegal yet.
There is a massive difference between "the only reason to mod a ps is to play pirate games" and "the only reason to mod a ps is to play pirate games unless you have a personality that I will sneer at".
Somehow you seem to have missed the point that you are the one bickering about calling it GNU/Linux. You claimed that you hate this bickering.
1. Why did you start it.
2. Why are you STILL doing it?
Elwood Maneer, 46, was charged with making terrorist threats and disorderly conduct, said Philadelphia police spokesman Cpl. Jim Pauley, who would not disclose what was said. "I don't have the exact words," Pauley said. "We're just saying he made an inappropriate comment. We're not going to get into exactly what he said."
In fact, the policeman's words are obviously untrue. He says "We're just saying he made an inappropriate comment" when they are actually charging him with "making terrorist threats and disorderly conduct".
Are we seriously expected to believe that they can't tell the difference between those two things?
It seems a reasonable assumption that if they're "not going to get into exactly what he said" that what he "exactly said" was either so innoucuous as to be embarrassing to admit or else that they really honestly don't care what he said... which would be bizarre as well as frightening.
The only allegation is that he said something, and they're not going to "get into" what it was?
Hardly absurd. It *is* the law. We believe in rule of law here on Planet Earth, and that means that we obey the laws until such time as those laws are changed.
;) I mean, not doing so would just be obeying a silly law, right?)
Your planet might be very nice but it doesn't sound much like Earth. Here we have people, not robots, and in general they follow their consciences plus consider the consequences to them of their actions (considering the consequences to others of course is part of folowing their consciences).
If people don't think that something is wrong and don't think the potential penalty outweighs the advantage then generally the fact that it's illegal will be at most a minor consideration.
For example, a typical individual will probably be unwilling to commit murder, both on grounds that they view it as immoral and, if they need to think beyond that, that the consequences of being caught are severe. In contrast, they will most likely be happy to park illegally if it's convenient and they don't expect to get caught. Even with a high likelihood of being caught they may consider the likely penalty to be low enough not to deter them. You should be able to find lots more examples of your own, just look around.
If you're familiar with our legal systems at all you'll know the prominent part that penalties play. This is precisely because just making it illegal won't stop it happening.
(If you feel like living without rule of law, then by all means show up at my door so I can beat the @$$# out of you.
I think this more than anything suggests that you have real problems. If committing random acts of violence against you were made lawful I wouldn't want to do it. For many of us not beating people up is not just obeying a law, silly or otherwise. However, if the only thing keeping you in check is your respect for law then I can see how important it is that you retain that and I regret now anything I've said that might cause you to waver in that.
Have fun on your planet, just try not to confuse it with Earth again. It's really very different.
HTH
But I have yet to find a single person that thinks it's "grey"... Everybody knows it's wrong, but they just don't care.
Your experience is obviously different to mine. I agree that people don't generally regard it as "grey" but whilst everybody appreciates that it's illegal very few consider it to be wrong.