So please, do not throw around absolutes so carelessly when discussing law and custom.
Laws and customs are irrelevant, as I criticize those frequently. I think a lot of people miss the point; I'm not really referring to how things are, but how I think they should be.
So yes, the status quo is that government thugs infringe upon people's individual liberties. I'm aware.
Government thugs have no business deciding what recreational drugs people put into their own bodies. The federal government has no actual constitutional basis to do this (despite insane interpretations of the commerce clause), either. We're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' so freedom should take priority over safety (false or otherwise); bodily freedom, especially.
Irrespective, if someone says 1+1=2 I'd say that depends, at the very least, on which base you're using, and once the phrase "it depends" enters the equation you're back to the fact it's subjective.
But that's just being pedantic and intentionally misinterpreting others' words to make a point.
That's not all that clever, or subjective. Interpreting my words may be subjective, but when you know my intent, suddenly it becomes a matter of fact. Word games don't interest me.
I disagree. I rather suspect that most of the money that people might make from such speech (assuming drawings of children having sex is considered a form of speech) comes from the legal right to prevent other people from copying them.
That's more like a privilege than a right, since it's (supposed to be) temporary. There's also no scientific evidence copyright is effective, and copyright infringes upon people's free speech and private property rights, so I'm absolutely opposed to it.
This legal right is granted "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
That's absolutely subjective.
To be clear, I'm not advocating a ban on drawing, or the possessition of drawings, but I'm far from convinced that the right to free speech encompases a right to claim payment for drawing children having sex.
If someone wants to sell their drawings, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. To say otherwise is authoritarian nonsense. *You* need a reason to be able to stop them; they're not the ones who need a reason to be able to sell their drawings. The default is that everything is legal until a law says otherwise. They're merely exercising they're private property rights in such a way as to make money from their *drawings*; there is absolutely no issue there whatsoever.
You seem intent on missing the point that it doesn't matter what system you come up with, that system must be performed by people, and people are very corruptible.
There is such a thing as "better" and "worse." Dictatorships are worse than the system we have in the US. I'm sure there are also better systems than what we have in the US. Something does not need to be perfect in order for it to be better.
I have indeed no valid counterarguments I wish to present, as with your lack of reading comprehension and shaky grasp of logic it would be throwing pearls to the swine.
I'm not the one lacking reading comprehension or logic here.
And for someone claiming that other people should just grow a thicker skin
In context, this is about free speech, not about merely being offended. Try again.
you're a massive hypocrite to blow up a remark on your immaturity into a molehill.
If you want to issue "You mad!"-type responses to anyone who disagrees with your logic, don't expect any intelligent person to find you very convincing.
Of course, emotional overreaction is another sign of your immaturity.
Ah, now you have the power to read people's emotions over the Internet. Most interesting. Tell me more!
Oh look, you can parrot other posts. Polly want a cracker?
I agree, your own logic was terrible; I wouldn't be able to stand seeing it again either. It's fairly 'childish' that you think you can use ridiculous logic against others but insult someone who uses it against you.
Yes, being "effeminate' is bad, because you've arbitrarily decided that it is. Furthermore, not being a barbarian who slaps around others who say things that I don't like is not the same as being "weak" or "effeminate." You into gender roles or something?
So, when people devise these tests, are they just out of their fucking minds, or what? Do they not understand the concept of subjectivity or freedom of speech?
I don't find sensibly-written obscenity laws objectionable
You don't find laws that ban material subjectively deemed to be "obscene" objectionable? Freedom of speech is far, far, far, far, far, far, far more important than satisfying worthless puritan scumbags and their subjective moral values.
Don't like it? Try not to look at it.
If a local government wants to outlaw the sale of cartoons, or bomb-making instructions, or whatever, well, if they can demonstrate a strong interest of the state in doing so, and also that this is the least-restrictive means to achieve that objective, then go for it.
That's authoritarian garbage, and no free country should want anything to do with it. Fundamental liberties like freedom of speech are far more important than this trash.
There is absolutely no such thing as a "sensibly-written" obscenity law; they simply do not exist. Either you support freedom of speech, or you do not. I know which side the obscenity law supporters are on, and it's not on the side of freedom.
Appeal to law. Law != morality, so this is irrelevant. If your point wasn't to equate legality with morality, then your point was worthless, as everyone here already knows about this crappy law, so you don't need to tell them that the law was broken or that they can campaign for it to be changed.
Would you want someone doing this with your kids?
Appeal to emotion. Even if I wouldn't, that is no excuse for infringing upon a fundamental right like freedom of speech.
You're an authoritarian to the core.
Some of whom have been later convicted of sexual assault against the children they painted.
Some humans are murderers, therefore all humans are murderers. Nice hasty generalization, there.
Furthermore, freedom of speech > safety. Take your "Think of the children!" garbage elsewhere. Dailymail, perhaps?
There is a big problem with the number of paedos in this country, already the police admit there are just too many too arrest.
Fearmongering nonsense. For one thing, a pedophile is simply someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children; an individual pedophile isn't necessarily a child molester, and vice versa. You are using incorrect terminology.
Second of all, society is safer than ever before; you need only look at crime statistics. If you're scared of child molesters, then you should never get into a car again, as it's far more likely you'll die in a car accident.
I fond it odd that anyone is defending this on the grounds of free speech......
Why is it odd to defend free speech on the grounds of free speech? What's odd is people who want government thugs to have the ability to subjectively determine that certain content is unacceptable for subjective reasons and then have it banned. That should be frightening to anyone who cares about freedom.
It's very specific, in many sections, that the neutrality rules apply only to "lawful content".
Well, that's a bunch of nonsense, then. Net neutrality should just be about ensuring... net neutrality; it should never be about determining the legality of content.
3) slowly shift their sexuality from kids to something more acceptable.
That's just absurd.
This should be required treatment for people interested in children
What? Just leave people alone. What is wrong with you people? If they haven't raped anyone, you have no reason to harass them with your ideas of what is "acceptable."
Slashdot Mirror
So please, do not throw around absolutes so carelessly when discussing law and custom.
Laws and customs are irrelevant, as I criticize those frequently. I think a lot of people miss the point; I'm not really referring to how things are, but how I think they should be.
So yes, the status quo is that government thugs infringe upon people's individual liberties. I'm aware.
Government thugs have no business deciding what recreational drugs people put into their own bodies. The federal government has no actual constitutional basis to do this (despite insane interpretations of the commerce clause), either. We're supposed to be 'the land of the free and the home of the brave,' so freedom should take priority over safety (false or otherwise); bodily freedom, especially.
Oh, Hero cold fjord! I bow only to you!
If the Hero says so, it must be true. Thanks for your hard work! People need to be saved from the very concept of freedom!
However, you're quite correct that I was trying to make a point.
A point? Like the point of a sword?
unless it's to get the record for the most posts under a single topic.
It's going to be hard to beat those MyCleanPC posters.
Or just stop letting anyone run these things.
Irrespective, if someone says 1+1=2 I'd say that depends, at the very least, on which base you're using, and once the phrase "it depends" enters the equation you're back to the fact it's subjective.
But that's just being pedantic and intentionally misinterpreting others' words to make a point.
He's a fan of guilt by association, I think.
Their job is fundamentally immoral to begin with.
It proves the cameras are working
No, it doesn't. But even if it did, mass government surveillance of public places is immoral.
That's not all that clever, or subjective. Interpreting my words may be subjective, but when you know my intent, suddenly it becomes a matter of fact. Word games don't interest me.
1 + 1 = 3, if you redefine "1" to mean something else. Now that is amazing.
I disagree. I rather suspect that most of the money that people might make from such speech (assuming drawings of children having sex is considered a form of speech) comes from the legal right to prevent other people from copying them.
That's more like a privilege than a right, since it's (supposed to be) temporary. There's also no scientific evidence copyright is effective, and copyright infringes upon people's free speech and private property rights, so I'm absolutely opposed to it.
This legal right is granted "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts".
That's absolutely subjective.
To be clear, I'm not advocating a ban on drawing, or the possessition of drawings, but I'm far from convinced that the right to free speech encompases a right to claim payment for drawing children having sex.
If someone wants to sell their drawings, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. To say otherwise is authoritarian nonsense. *You* need a reason to be able to stop them; they're not the ones who need a reason to be able to sell their drawings. The default is that everything is legal until a law says otherwise. They're merely exercising they're private property rights in such a way as to make money from their *drawings*; there is absolutely no issue there whatsoever.
You seem intent on missing the point that it doesn't matter what system you come up with, that system must be performed by people, and people are very corruptible.
There is such a thing as "better" and "worse." Dictatorships are worse than the system we have in the US. I'm sure there are also better systems than what we have in the US. Something does not need to be perfect in order for it to be better.
I have indeed no valid counterarguments I wish to present, as with your lack of reading comprehension and shaky grasp of logic it would be throwing pearls to the swine.
I'm not the one lacking reading comprehension or logic here.
And for someone claiming that other people should just grow a thicker skin
In context, this is about free speech, not about merely being offended. Try again.
you're a massive hypocrite to blow up a remark on your immaturity into a molehill.
If you want to issue "You mad!"-type responses to anyone who disagrees with your logic, don't expect any intelligent person to find you very convincing.
Of course, emotional overreaction is another sign of your immaturity.
Ah, now you have the power to read people's emotions over the Internet. Most interesting. Tell me more!
Oh look, you can parrot other posts. Polly want a cracker?
I agree, your own logic was terrible; I wouldn't be able to stand seeing it again either. It's fairly 'childish' that you think you can use ridiculous logic against others but insult someone who uses it against you.
Yes, being "effeminate' is bad, because you've arbitrarily decided that it is. Furthermore, not being a barbarian who slaps around others who say things that I don't like is not the same as being "weak" or "effeminate." You into gender roles or something?
I don't think I said anything controversial or barbaric, there. Do you think that the Supreme Court is always right, or what?
So, when people devise these tests, are they just out of their fucking minds, or what? Do they not understand the concept of subjectivity or freedom of speech?
I don't find sensibly-written obscenity laws objectionable
You don't find laws that ban material subjectively deemed to be "obscene" objectionable? Freedom of speech is far, far, far, far, far, far, far more important than satisfying worthless puritan scumbags and their subjective moral values.
Don't like it? Try not to look at it.
If a local government wants to outlaw the sale of cartoons, or bomb-making instructions, or whatever, well, if they can demonstrate a strong interest of the state in doing so, and also that this is the least-restrictive means to achieve that objective, then go for it.
That's authoritarian garbage, and no free country should want anything to do with it. Fundamental liberties like freedom of speech are far more important than this trash.
There is absolutely no such thing as a "sensibly-written" obscenity law; they simply do not exist. Either you support freedom of speech, or you do not. I know which side the obscenity law supporters are on, and it's not on the side of freedom.
Community can set standards
Sounds like tyranny of the majority to me. A good thing if you don't like individual liberties, but a bad thing otherwise.
But. The guy is weird even for a brit and if he is monitored until the end of his time, all the better.
Why is punishing someone who merely looked at images forever considered a good thing?
broke the law plain and simple
Appeal to law. Law != morality, so this is irrelevant. If your point wasn't to equate legality with morality, then your point was worthless, as everyone here already knows about this crappy law, so you don't need to tell them that the law was broken or that they can campaign for it to be changed.
Would you want someone doing this with your kids?
Appeal to emotion. Even if I wouldn't, that is no excuse for infringing upon a fundamental right like freedom of speech.
You're an authoritarian to the core.
Some of whom have been later convicted of sexual assault against the children they painted.
Some humans are murderers, therefore all humans are murderers. Nice hasty generalization, there.
Furthermore, freedom of speech > safety. Take your "Think of the children!" garbage elsewhere. Dailymail, perhaps?
There is a big problem with the number of paedos in this country, already the police admit there are just too many too arrest.
Fearmongering nonsense. For one thing, a pedophile is simply someone with a sexual attraction to prepubescent children; an individual pedophile isn't necessarily a child molester, and vice versa. You are using incorrect terminology.
Second of all, society is safer than ever before; you need only look at crime statistics. If you're scared of child molesters, then you should never get into a car again, as it's far more likely you'll die in a car accident.
I fond it odd that anyone is defending this on the grounds of free speech......
Why is it odd to defend free speech on the grounds of free speech? What's odd is people who want government thugs to have the ability to subjectively determine that certain content is unacceptable for subjective reasons and then have it banned. That should be frightening to anyone who cares about freedom.
I am not sure about that
but it is definitely not absurd to shift sexuality from kids to something else
What?
It's very specific, in many sections, that the neutrality rules apply only to "lawful content".
Well, that's a bunch of nonsense, then. Net neutrality should just be about ensuring... net neutrality; it should never be about determining the legality of content.
3) slowly shift their sexuality from kids to something more acceptable.
That's just absurd.
This should be required treatment for people interested in children
What? Just leave people alone. What is wrong with you people? If they haven't raped anyone, you have no reason to harass them with your ideas of what is "acceptable."