When you can avoid people being killed by choosing a better time, place, or manner in making your point, that's a reasonable expectation.
It's "reasonable" only if you're anti-free speech. Blame (or 'hold responsible,' if you prefer) the idiots who riot or commit violence, not the speaker.
Common sense is fine when dealing with very simple problems in a very familiar environment, with relatively low impact.
I'd say you should just use your brain, rather than relying on "common sense." "Common sense" is not often common, and rarely does it make sense if you think about it.
2. Not all cuts are equal. Bethesda got in trouble with the ESRB for omitting a graphically wounded hanging corpse when submitting Oblivion for review. Australia wanted zombified cops removed from L4D2. One is reasonable, one is ridiculous.
Fiscal/Small-gov't conservatives want government to fund its Constitutionally mandated functions, like defense.
You are mistaken. Real advocates of small government do not want even defense to be bloated out the ass, like what we have. Anyone who says current military and defense spending is at all appropriate is not a fiscal/small government conservative.
Not everyone is so lucky. You're a typical example of a person who only thinks of themselves. People who actually do things to change the status quo--rather than doing nothing--are the ones who will likely be targeted.
but this laughable notion that the "gubment is out to get all of us" just takes away from the real issues and is the same reason those scared folks in the Bible Belt stock up on 100's of weapons for when they "come to get 'em". Folks watch too many movies.
It's not that they watch too many movies; it's that they know their damn history. The hundreds of millions of people murdered throughout history are a testament to the fact that we should all be extremely cautious of anything the government does. In the US alone, we had/have slavery, Jim Crow, Japanese internment camps, severe violations of people's privacy rights, numerous unjust wars, DUI checkpoints, free speech zones, constitution-free zones, among other things. It's called a healthy mistrust of government, and people who aren't ignorant of history know it's a good thing.
What's a laughable notion is that the government is made up of perfect little angels. And if you don't believe that is so, and you accept the obvious fact that power corrupts, then you should not be making posts that encourage people to just trust the government.
But people act so paranoid that they detract from the actual atrocities that go on
Being highly cautious of the government doesn't detract from anything. If more people were like that, we wouldn't have to deal with the numerous ways the government violates people's rights, and fundamental freedoms are a more important issue than the issues you brought up.
But oh yeah, be scared that Obama is gonna send some henchmen to rip you out of your house in the middle of the night and block your phone off and your family will never see or hear from you again.
How about stop being selfish and realize that it's not all about you?
Why do they need to? Look, freedom has risks; deal with it. Maybe you'll die today, or you'll die some other time. If you want to have freedom, you can't beg the government to take away people's rights in exchange for safety; you're a worthless coward if you do.
If you're still behaving petulantly by your late teens, you have no one to blame but yourself (and maybe your parents, maybe because they were too old, ironically).
Well, literally billions of people should be blaming themselves, then, as a grand majority of people are hardly different from children.
Cops and government officials get busted every single day from surveillance. Government employees get fired every day for their behavior caught on camera.
Cameras bring truth. Truth brings freedom.
The government spying on nearly everyone's communications is a fair bit different from individuals recording what they see. Privacy, the fourth amendment, and freedom are all at stake in the former case, but not in the latter.
Way to ignore just about everything I said, though.
No one? Are you sure? Because you'd be wrong; I do.
But I can recognize the difference between mass government surveillance and limited surveillance on privately-owned property. The fact that you don't seem to be able to is a bit sad.
There are irrational paranoid fears of a 1984 style future or a Soviet Union future, but in 1984 the evil government was actually losing the war, the Soviet Union disintegrated and China has vastly liberalized.
Why don't you tell the hundreds of millions of people throughout history that were murdered or abused by governments that being highly cautious of the government is "irrational"? What's truly irrational is this fantasy land viewpoint that the government is made up of perfect angels; it's made up of human beings, and they're every bit as corruptible and subject to errors as the Bad Guys that you fear. Give the government too much power, or powers that could easily be abused in horrendous ways, and you will not like the results, provided you have a functioning brain.
But no. Forget the fourth amendment, privacy, freedom, and all that garbage. We're the land of the free and the home of the brave! Free and brave people discard their freedoms for safety!
Slashdot Mirror
When you can avoid people being killed by choosing a better time, place, or manner in making your point, that's a reasonable expectation.
It's "reasonable" only if you're anti-free speech. Blame (or 'hold responsible,' if you prefer) the idiots who riot or commit violence, not the speaker.
For another, alleged garbage is the law of the land.
You'll find that I disagree with many laws and do not think laws are necessarily moral.
Perhaps it's about protecting the public from people who would have reasonable grounds to plead not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect
That makes no sense to the topic at hand, which is about free speech.
Common sense is fine when dealing with very simple problems in a very familiar environment, with relatively low impact.
I'd say you should just use your brain, rather than relying on "common sense." "Common sense" is not often common, and rarely does it make sense if you think about it.
Even worse, that paranoid atmosphere is exactly what drives legislation like the Patriot Act in the first place.
That's a different type of paranoia.
If you really want to stop this sort of abuse, what you need to foster in your self and in others is not paranoia, or mistrust, but confidence.
Being highly cautious of the government is a good thing, and as history shows, the only reasonable stance.
2. Not all cuts are equal. Bethesda got in trouble with the ESRB for omitting a graphically wounded hanging corpse when submitting Oblivion for review. Australia wanted zombified cops removed from L4D2. One is reasonable, one is ridiculous.
Neither is reasonable; both are ridiculous.
Businesses aren't the government and therefore what they do technically isn't censorship.
*sigh* False. Look up the definition of censorship.
To make an analogy to a copyright doctrine established in Sony v. Universal and other cases
Why would you use garbage as an analogy?
perhaps some kinds of speech should be considered "contributory rioting" if they're made with the intent of causing others to riot.
Perhaps people should take responsibility for their own actions, rather than expecting government thugs to harass people who merely speak.
If people riot, then that is their own fault. How about some personal responsibility?
Anything to incite civil unrest against a group of people
What people are offended by is their own problem, and no one else's. If they cause civil unrest, then it's completely their fault.
If you say that such speech should be disallowed, you must despise freedom.
Fiscal/Small-gov't conservatives want government to fund its Constitutionally mandated functions, like defense.
You are mistaken. Real advocates of small government do not want even defense to be bloated out the ass, like what we have. Anyone who says current military and defense spending is at all appropriate is not a fiscal/small government conservative.
That might be the case, but it might also not be the case.
The authorities and government leave me alone.
Not everyone is so lucky. You're a typical example of a person who only thinks of themselves. People who actually do things to change the status quo--rather than doing nothing--are the ones who will likely be targeted.
but this laughable notion that the "gubment is out to get all of us" just takes away from the real issues and is the same reason those scared folks in the Bible Belt stock up on 100's of weapons for when they "come to get 'em". Folks watch too many movies.
It's not that they watch too many movies; it's that they know their damn history. The hundreds of millions of people murdered throughout history are a testament to the fact that we should all be extremely cautious of anything the government does. In the US alone, we had/have slavery, Jim Crow, Japanese internment camps, severe violations of people's privacy rights, numerous unjust wars, DUI checkpoints, free speech zones, constitution-free zones, among other things. It's called a healthy mistrust of government, and people who aren't ignorant of history know it's a good thing.
What's a laughable notion is that the government is made up of perfect little angels. And if you don't believe that is so, and you accept the obvious fact that power corrupts, then you should not be making posts that encourage people to just trust the government.
But people act so paranoid that they detract from the actual atrocities that go on
Being highly cautious of the government doesn't detract from anything. If more people were like that, we wouldn't have to deal with the numerous ways the government violates people's rights, and fundamental freedoms are a more important issue than the issues you brought up.
But oh yeah, be scared that Obama is gonna send some henchmen to rip you out of your house in the middle of the night and block your phone off and your family will never see or hear from you again.
How about stop being selfish and realize that it's not all about you?
This seems like a lot of FUD
Your post is oozing naivete.
Again, I don't think there is legal ground to destroy property in a copyright case.
Since our government is so easily bribed by copyright trolls, I don't think this matters.
When someone infringes on your rights
Unjust privileges, more like it.
shouldn't you have recourse to sue them for damages?
You do, but you can't forgo the justice system to do it.
Because putting a snow globe in your carryon has anything to do with politics.
When there are government thugs in the airport violating people's rights, it sure does. It shouldn't, but it does.
There are actually other things they should do
Nope. Get these worthless, immoral government thugs out of airports; the end.
Yes, just do what the government thugs who are violating your rights ask you to; it's much easier that way...
Why do they need to? Look, freedom has risks; deal with it. Maybe you'll die today, or you'll die some other time. If you want to have freedom, you can't beg the government to take away people's rights in exchange for safety; you're a worthless coward if you do.
The true answer is to allow people to get through a full background check in exchange for skipping the screening process entirely.
No. The true answer is to get government thugs out of airports and stop harassing people.
Better idea: Get government thugs out of airports; screening will be much faster, and our rights won't be getting violated.
If you're still behaving petulantly by your late teens, you have no one to blame but yourself (and maybe your parents, maybe because they were too old, ironically).
Well, literally billions of people should be blaming themselves, then, as a grand majority of people are hardly different from children.
You mean as apposed to ending the life before it begins?
You can't end a life that never existed to begin with; that's nonsensical.
Your pocketknife can be placed in checked baggage - you might as well complain that you're not allowed to bring bombs on airplanes.
Wow. So, then, I take it that you support government thugs harassing people at airports? If so, you despise freedom.
Cops and government officials get busted every single day from surveillance. Government employees get fired every day for their behavior caught on camera.
Cameras bring truth. Truth brings freedom.
The government spying on nearly everyone's communications is a fair bit different from individuals recording what they see. Privacy, the fourth amendment, and freedom are all at stake in the former case, but not in the latter.
Way to ignore just about everything I said, though.
No one complains about those.
No one? Are you sure? Because you'd be wrong; I do.
But I can recognize the difference between mass government surveillance and limited surveillance on privately-owned property. The fact that you don't seem to be able to is a bit sad.
There are irrational paranoid fears of a 1984 style future or a Soviet Union future, but in 1984 the evil government was actually losing the war, the Soviet Union disintegrated and China has vastly liberalized.
Why don't you tell the hundreds of millions of people throughout history that were murdered or abused by governments that being highly cautious of the government is "irrational"? What's truly irrational is this fantasy land viewpoint that the government is made up of perfect angels; it's made up of human beings, and they're every bit as corruptible and subject to errors as the Bad Guys that you fear. Give the government too much power, or powers that could easily be abused in horrendous ways, and you will not like the results, provided you have a functioning brain.
But no. Forget the fourth amendment, privacy, freedom, and all that garbage. We're the land of the free and the home of the brave! Free and brave people discard their freedoms for safety!