Problems: 1) "If you were in a different situation than you are now, you would think differently!" does not debunk a single one of my statements; it's a non sequitur. 2) You can't possibly know what I would think in such a situation unless you claim to be psychic, but then I'm going to need to see some proof. 3) Lamenting the fact that you have no food to eat is not mutually exclusive with believing that freedom of speech, privacy, and other fundamental rights are monumentally important. You can, in fact, do both.
We don't need nazi ideology, holocaust deniers or other dangerous propaganda and we're all the better off for it.
We also don't *need* comments like yours. In fact, I think we'd be better off if you moved to North Korea.
We're way more free than stupid yankees because we don't have to worry about being fired from our jobs or being bankrupted by medical bills.
Freedom from government harassment is *not* the same as being free from random thugs (though the government can certainly act like thugs). The government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, so when the government harasses you or infringes upon your basic liberties (in this case, *everyone's* liberties), that is far worse than if some random criminal were to harm you.
Keep your "freedom" to get shot and live under a bridge, redneck.
Keep ignoring all of the millions of government abuses of power throughout history and pretending that your government is full of perfect angels.
And considering the context, a lot of this is about freedom from mass surveillance. I suppose you also don't want that freedom.
Who said that I do? That fool wants to give the government pretty much unlimited power, and you'll just end up with something like North Korea, or police state lite. Why not just skip the whole process and move to North Korea to see what his nonsense will get him? He seems to think that the people in the government are perfect angels, but history shows otherwise.
I know it's hard for you to understand, but companies must stop harassment of their workers.
If wearing certain shirts (including your examples) is defined as harassment, and the government threatens companies with punishments if they don't stop such "harassment" (i.e. wearing something that some people are offended by), then it is a free speech issue. If the government were not involved, it wouldn't be a first amendment issue, but they are.
And when the company fires you, go take them to court for wrongful termination.
You misunderstand. The problem is when the government *forces* companies to fire people for their speech, under the threat of some penalty if they do not.
Again, bullshit yourself. Roth v. United States Miller v. California
As I said: "Bullshit. The first amendment makes *no* such distinction. The courts were absolutely 100% wrong here. Too often, the courts ignore the constitution in order to satisfy their personal agenda: To give the government powers the constitution does not grant it."
The judges were simply wrong. No question about it.
If is isn't your speech, then why do you think you should have a right to repeat it when the person who did say it says you can't? It is quite relevant if the words are your own or not.
Because it's still just communicating ideas. Whether or not you came up with them is completely irrelevant. That's the real red herring here.
If the words belong to someone else
Yeah, no. I reject this idea in its entirety, hence why I reject copyright.
If it isn't your "person, papers, or property", then you can't claim your fourth amendment rights are being violated when the cops confiscate your neighbor's car.
Speech isn't physical property. Completely different concept. Data can be copied easily, and if the government stops *you* from communicating those copied ideas, then yes, that *is* affecting you; they're harassing you, after all.
You're just saying, "Someone else said it first, so it isn't a violation of your free speech rights to stop you from repeating it." That's unworkable, authoritarian bullshit, exactly as we see with copyright.
Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to reproduce the speech of others when those others do not wish you to do so.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to communicate without being harassed by government thugs. Whether they're your own words or data is irrelevant. How much effort the original writer put into it is irrelevant, but at least you said "copy." I think it's rather absurd to say that your freedom of speech should be restricted merely because other people don't want you to quote them or transfer data they assembled. Humans make copies of things all the time; it's in their nature. This distinction doesn't even make sense.
Then DRM might be viable for now. Even the so-called "tech-savvy" generation mostly can do little else other than access Facebook accounts and use software that they took a class on (most likely a Microsoft Essentials-type class).
Not exactly but copyright hasn't always existed and in some places like China it's generally ignored.
No, it hasn't, but such societies are/were far different from ours in a number of other significant ways that you can't really say one way or another. We don't even know how much the lack of (or the ignoring of) copyright impacts/impacted them. It would be difficult to study this scientifically, as these things usually are.
I don't think freedom of speech is really inhibited by copyright.
Then what is it when websites are taken down for copyright infringement, or when people are punished for using their own equipment to send data around? Copyright enforcement definitely requires infringing upon people's speech and private property rights.
I also wasn't aware that I spoke about 'safety' at all.
DRM is fairly effective, the problem is it's a massive PITA for legitimate users and prevents a lot of legitimate uses.
Actually, a grand majority of DRM is ineffective; it gets cracked almost immediately, and therefore anyone with a slight amount of knowledge can apply the cracks.
We've never had a society like ours that did not have copyright, so we don't actually know what it would look like. You can only make baseless guesses based on how our current society operates, not a society where people are used to the idea of there being no copyright and therefore have figured out how to adapt. I don't claim to know what it would be like, either.
And freedom (freedom of speech, real private property rights) is more important to me than the sort of 'safety' you speak of, anyway.
My actual solution is to let people come up with their own solutions. But yes, I'm sure many would choose to try DRM... and many would fail, since DRM is rarely effective in any sense.
I would suggest that we rely on the actual free market rather than on government-enforced monopolies that infringe upon free speech and real private property rights. It's up to individuals trying to sell something to succeed, and no one else. If they can't figure out how to make money on their product, that is simply too bad.
For example, I'd say that governments ignoring proper legal procedures and passing draconian laws because some corporate scumbags bribed them are real crimes.
Everything that is not a fallacy is not automatically correct.
No, but I didn't say that, either. I'm honestly not sure what your point is.
But given the situation, calling this incorrect is complete nonsense. The slippery slope is here, and Cameron the authoritarian is pushing us down it ("saving the children"->"stopping terrorists").
Safety and security ARE more important than "freedom".
Simply incorrect. If you believe that way, then move to North Korea.
I, however, want privacy, free speech, and other fundamental rights. I recognize that a life without these things is not a life worth living.
I prefer the "freedom" from poverty and the "freedom" not to be shot or blown up over the "freedom" to google for explosive recipes or extremist ideologies, thank you very much.
You seem to be completely and utterly ignorant of history. That is, ignorant of the millions of abuses of government power throughout history. The US's surveillance is already being used for parallel construction and spying on love interests. Police routinely abuse innocent people. But I'm sure that the government is full of perfect beings who can do no wrong and can make no mistakes. Not only that, but you can trust every future person in the government to be this way. The sheer amount of stupidity it takes to think this way is simply astounding, so I must congratulate you and your worthless ilk.
The governments in free countries are supposed to be on the side of the people. When your government abuses you, that is much worse than if some random criminal abuses you.
And I see that you want to enact censorship. How very principled of you. I'm sure you'll continue believing that right up until the moment the government thugs you think are so perfect censor speech that you like. When you're someone who mindlessly goes along with the status quo, you don't need to worry about anything. Freedom is speech is mainly to protect speech that people do not like, otherwise there would be no point.
And since the majority of sane people think likewise, you will have to learn seeing things our way.:)
Bandwagon fallacy.
I'll take my chances. I'd much rather live and take risks than live in a police state. North Korea already has what you want, so I suggest moving there.
Aaah, complete and total ignorance of not only history, but the present. Slippery slopes are not automatically fallacies. The idea that the government uses powers it said it would only use for X for things other than X is just a historical fact. For instance, as the guy's comment above yours mentioned, parallel construction.
Stop being ignorant. At least pay attention to the present.
Slippery slope is not automatically a fallacy. In fact, history is full of slippery slopes where the government wants the power to do something, and then abuses it for other purposes as well. People who point this out are typically shouted down for supposedly using a "slippery slope" argument by those who are ignorant of history. There is absolutely no question that the government will continue expanding its power and using it in ways no one could ever dream of if we don't put a stop to it.
In fact, the slippery slope is already happening. First it was "for the children," now it's "to stop the terrorists." You'd have to be completely blind not to see it.
Don't let them take away your rights. Freedom is more important than any safety they can offer you.
In cold fjord land: 1) You have the right to be subjected to mass surveillance by your government. This is neither a violation of your rights nor a violation of the constitution. 2) You have the right to be molested at airports and anywhere else TSA thugs might want to harass people at. Again, magically not a violation of the 4th amendment or your rights. 3) It's perfectly okay for the government to ban drawings of children having sex, because society doesn't like that sort of thing. Not a free speech issue at all. 4) Free speech zones are a-okay. Not a violation of the first amendment as long as it's temporary. Have to give other people a chance to speak by violating some people's free speech rights. 5) The courts are always right, regardless of what the constitution says or what its spirit is. 6) Pretty much any policy or law that violates your privacy and the constitution is fine as long as it's done in the name of safety. Mass surveillance of public places, DUI checkpoints, etc. 7) Questioning any of this means that you want "license" and not 'real liberty.'
All these while he claims to want limited government. If that doesn't show that he's devoid of critical thinking skills and principles, I don't know what does.
Legal != moral. Illegal != immoral. Why is this important? Because what is constitutional is not necessarily morally right. Mass surveillance is simply wrong, regardless of whether it's done to foreigners or not. You might not care about morality, but I do. I thank Snowden for leaking everything.
that is treason.
What material support has he provided? You'll find that our constitution's definition of treason is far too narrow for it to be applied to someone like Snowden. You're really pushing it here.
We are a representative republic. We have a constitution that the government must follow. The majority do *not* and should not have absolute power.
It might be a minority view that the government should follow the constitution, but it's not optional; it's mandatory. The NSA's mass surveillance must stop.
So don't repeat that "You're a minority, so deal with it." nonsense again, because it simply doesn't make sense.
And lets always vote the party of big government because they say they want to give us freebies all the time!
"the party is big government" is The One Party, which is actually just the Republican and Democrat parties. Surely you aren't under the illusion that there are truly meaningful differences between the two? The One Party has been taking away our fundamental liberties in the name of safety for a long time; there is consensus between the 'two' fake parties. They just distract people with issues like welfare, abortion, the economy, and same sex marriage and pretend that that's all there is.
The only people you should vote for are people not affiliated with The One Party and who care about freedom and the constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Problems:
1) "If you were in a different situation than you are now, you would think differently!" does not debunk a single one of my statements; it's a non sequitur.
2) You can't possibly know what I would think in such a situation unless you claim to be psychic, but then I'm going to need to see some proof.
3) Lamenting the fact that you have no food to eat is not mutually exclusive with believing that freedom of speech, privacy, and other fundamental rights are monumentally important. You can, in fact, do both.
Learn some basic logic, "kid."
We don't need nazi ideology, holocaust deniers or other dangerous propaganda and we're all the better off for it.
We also don't *need* comments like yours. In fact, I think we'd be better off if you moved to North Korea.
We're way more free than stupid yankees because we don't have to worry about being fired from our jobs or being bankrupted by medical bills.
Freedom from government harassment is *not* the same as being free from random thugs (though the government can certainly act like thugs). The government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people, so when the government harasses you or infringes upon your basic liberties (in this case, *everyone's* liberties), that is far worse than if some random criminal were to harm you.
Keep your "freedom" to get shot and live under a bridge, redneck.
Keep ignoring all of the millions of government abuses of power throughout history and pretending that your government is full of perfect angels.
And considering the context, a lot of this is about freedom from mass surveillance. I suppose you also don't want that freedom.
Who said that I do? That fool wants to give the government pretty much unlimited power, and you'll just end up with something like North Korea, or police state lite. Why not just skip the whole process and move to North Korea to see what his nonsense will get him? He seems to think that the people in the government are perfect angels, but history shows otherwise.
That was my point.
I know it's hard for you to understand, but companies must stop harassment of their workers.
If wearing certain shirts (including your examples) is defined as harassment, and the government threatens companies with punishments if they don't stop such "harassment" (i.e. wearing something that some people are offended by), then it is a free speech issue. If the government were not involved, it wouldn't be a first amendment issue, but they are.
And when the company fires you, go take them to court for wrongful termination.
You misunderstand. The problem is when the government *forces* companies to fire people for their speech, under the threat of some penalty if they do not.
Again, bullshit yourself.
Roth v. United States
Miller v. California
As I said: "Bullshit. The first amendment makes *no* such distinction. The courts were absolutely 100% wrong here. Too often, the courts ignore the constitution in order to satisfy their personal agenda: To give the government powers the constitution does not grant it."
The judges were simply wrong. No question about it.
If is isn't your speech, then why do you think you should have a right to repeat it when the person who did say it says you can't? It is quite relevant if the words are your own or not.
Because it's still just communicating ideas. Whether or not you came up with them is completely irrelevant. That's the real red herring here.
If the words belong to someone else
Yeah, no. I reject this idea in its entirety, hence why I reject copyright.
If it isn't your "person, papers, or property", then you can't claim your fourth amendment rights are being violated when the cops confiscate your neighbor's car.
Speech isn't physical property. Completely different concept. Data can be copied easily, and if the government stops *you* from communicating those copied ideas, then yes, that *is* affecting you; they're harassing you, after all.
You're just saying, "Someone else said it first, so it isn't a violation of your free speech rights to stop you from repeating it." That's unworkable, authoritarian bullshit, exactly as we see with copyright.
Freedom of speech does not mean the freedom to reproduce the speech of others when those others do not wish you to do so.
Freedom of speech is the freedom to communicate without being harassed by government thugs. Whether they're your own words or data is irrelevant. How much effort the original writer put into it is irrelevant, but at least you said "copy." I think it's rather absurd to say that your freedom of speech should be restricted merely because other people don't want you to quote them or transfer data they assembled. Humans make copies of things all the time; it's in their nature. This distinction doesn't even make sense.
Exactly, DRM is fairly effective :P
Then DRM might be viable for now. Even the so-called "tech-savvy" generation mostly can do little else other than access Facebook accounts and use software that they took a class on (most likely a Microsoft Essentials-type class).
Not exactly but copyright hasn't always existed and in some places like China it's generally ignored.
No, it hasn't, but such societies are/were far different from ours in a number of other significant ways that you can't really say one way or another. We don't even know how much the lack of (or the ignoring of) copyright impacts/impacted them. It would be difficult to study this scientifically, as these things usually are.
I don't think freedom of speech is really inhibited by copyright.
Then what is it when websites are taken down for copyright infringement, or when people are punished for using their own equipment to send data around? Copyright enforcement definitely requires infringing upon people's speech and private property rights.
I also wasn't aware that I spoke about 'safety' at all.
Safety from lack of innovation.
DRM is fairly effective, the problem is it's a massive PITA for legitimate users and prevents a lot of legitimate uses.
Actually, a grand majority of DRM is ineffective; it gets cracked almost immediately, and therefore anyone with a slight amount of knowledge can apply the cracks.
We've never had a society like ours that did not have copyright, so we don't actually know what it would look like. You can only make baseless guesses based on how our current society operates, not a society where people are used to the idea of there being no copyright and therefore have figured out how to adapt. I don't claim to know what it would be like, either.
And freedom (freedom of speech, real private property rights) is more important to me than the sort of 'safety' you speak of, anyway.
My actual solution is to let people come up with their own solutions. But yes, I'm sure many would choose to try DRM... and many would fail, since DRM is rarely effective in any sense.
I would suggest that we rely on the actual free market rather than on government-enforced monopolies that infringe upon free speech and real private property rights. It's up to individuals trying to sell something to succeed, and no one else. If they can't figure out how to make money on their product, that is simply too bad.
For example, I'd say that governments ignoring proper legal procedures and passing draconian laws because some corporate scumbags bribed them are real crimes.
And yes, these were real crimes.
I would say that copyright infringement, whether on a massive scale or not, is pretty far down on the list of "real crimes."
He engaged in massive copyright infringement to enrich himself by stealing other people's work.
Copied. Also, I'm pretty sure it was his users. He may have benefited, but I don't think he directly did much of anything.
Everything that is not a fallacy is not automatically correct.
No, but I didn't say that, either. I'm honestly not sure what your point is.
But given the situation, calling this incorrect is complete nonsense. The slippery slope is here, and Cameron the authoritarian is pushing us down it ("saving the children"->"stopping terrorists").
Safety and security ARE more important than "freedom".
Simply incorrect. If you believe that way, then move to North Korea.
I, however, want privacy, free speech, and other fundamental rights. I recognize that a life without these things is not a life worth living.
I prefer the "freedom" from poverty and the "freedom" not to be shot or blown up over the "freedom" to google for explosive recipes or extremist ideologies, thank you very much.
You seem to be completely and utterly ignorant of history. That is, ignorant of the millions of abuses of government power throughout history. The US's surveillance is already being used for parallel construction and spying on love interests. Police routinely abuse innocent people. But I'm sure that the government is full of perfect beings who can do no wrong and can make no mistakes. Not only that, but you can trust every future person in the government to be this way. The sheer amount of stupidity it takes to think this way is simply astounding, so I must congratulate you and your worthless ilk.
The governments in free countries are supposed to be on the side of the people. When your government abuses you, that is much worse than if some random criminal abuses you.
And I see that you want to enact censorship. How very principled of you. I'm sure you'll continue believing that right up until the moment the government thugs you think are so perfect censor speech that you like. When you're someone who mindlessly goes along with the status quo, you don't need to worry about anything. Freedom is speech is mainly to protect speech that people do not like, otherwise there would be no point.
And since the majority of sane people think likewise, you will have to learn seeing things our way. :)
Bandwagon fallacy.
I'll take my chances. I'd much rather live and take risks than live in a police state. North Korea already has what you want, so I suggest moving there.
Aaah, complete and total ignorance of not only history, but the present. Slippery slopes are not automatically fallacies. The idea that the government uses powers it said it would only use for X for things other than X is just a historical fact. For instance, as the guy's comment above yours mentioned, parallel construction.
Stop being ignorant. At least pay attention to the present.
Slippery slope is not automatically a fallacy. In fact, history is full of slippery slopes where the government wants the power to do something, and then abuses it for other purposes as well. People who point this out are typically shouted down for supposedly using a "slippery slope" argument by those who are ignorant of history. There is absolutely no question that the government will continue expanding its power and using it in ways no one could ever dream of if we don't put a stop to it.
In fact, the slippery slope is already happening. First it was "for the children," now it's "to stop the terrorists." You'd have to be completely blind not to see it.
Don't let them take away your rights. Freedom is more important than any safety they can offer you.
Given how misguided he is, I think there may be a serious issue with his brain.
In cold fjord land:
1) You have the right to be subjected to mass surveillance by your government. This is neither a violation of your rights nor a violation of the constitution.
2) You have the right to be molested at airports and anywhere else TSA thugs might want to harass people at. Again, magically not a violation of the 4th amendment or your rights.
3) It's perfectly okay for the government to ban drawings of children having sex, because society doesn't like that sort of thing. Not a free speech issue at all.
4) Free speech zones are a-okay. Not a violation of the first amendment as long as it's temporary. Have to give other people a chance to speak by violating some people's free speech rights.
5) The courts are always right, regardless of what the constitution says or what its spirit is.
6) Pretty much any policy or law that violates your privacy and the constitution is fine as long as it's done in the name of safety. Mass surveillance of public places, DUI checkpoints, etc.
7) Questioning any of this means that you want "license" and not 'real liberty.'
All these while he claims to want limited government. If that doesn't show that he's devoid of critical thinking skills and principles, I don't know what does.
Not having one, and not needing one are two different things.
My point: We must ban the draft, because it's not impossible we could have another one. It wouldn't even be all that surprising if a big war happened.
You cannot ban an idea. Nice try though.
You know precisely what I meant.
You're right, some children have better comprehension skills than some adults
Yes, I agree.
that adults (should/typically) have.
Sadly, most don't have those skills. And as for "should," everyone should have those skills.
Not just brown people. Many of their actions violate the constitution and affect people of all races.
someone who appears to be as intelligent as you do
You are referring to cold fjord, right...?
Legal != moral. Illegal != immoral. Why is this important? Because what is constitutional is not necessarily morally right. Mass surveillance is simply wrong, regardless of whether it's done to foreigners or not. You might not care about morality, but I do. I thank Snowden for leaking everything.
that is treason.
What material support has he provided? You'll find that our constitution's definition of treason is far too narrow for it to be applied to someone like Snowden. You're really pushing it here.
We are a representative republic. We have a constitution that the government must follow. The majority do *not* and should not have absolute power.
It might be a minority view that the government should follow the constitution, but it's not optional; it's mandatory. The NSA's mass surveillance must stop.
So don't repeat that "You're a minority, so deal with it." nonsense again, because it simply doesn't make sense.
And lets always vote the party of big government because they say they want to give us freebies all the time!
"the party is big government" is The One Party, which is actually just the Republican and Democrat parties. Surely you aren't under the illusion that there are truly meaningful differences between the two? The One Party has been taking away our fundamental liberties in the name of safety for a long time; there is consensus between the 'two' fake parties. They just distract people with issues like welfare, abortion, the economy, and same sex marriage and pretend that that's all there is.
The only people you should vote for are people not affiliated with The One Party and who care about freedom and the constitution.