Your lack of compassion for our fundamental liberties and your involvement with the illogical "for the children" crowd have been noted.
You don't get to decide who I do or don't have compassion for, you ignorant fool, just like I don't get to decide that for you. Just because I don't worship children and place their lives above all else does not mean I have no compassion for rape victims. But do note that I have compassion for all rape victims, including those who are children.
Introducing logic into a topic where people are screaming to burn the witches is never a bad thing, and it doesn't mean that you lack compassion for victims. I have no interest in your conspiracy theories or your exaggerated bogeymen, but that does not mean I feel no compassion for those who are raped.
While copyright isn't popular around here, the fact remains that a lot of people manage to make money by producing easily copyable content.
Yes, and they might even be able to do that without copyright. We have no idea what our society would look like if copyright just magically vanished. Businesses, instead of abusing copyright to get what they want, would have to find alternative means of making money. Would they be successful? Again, copyright's effectiveness has not been scientifically proven, so no one knows.
And it's a lot easier to do so if the content is legal.
Indeed, and that's the main difference, not the lack of copyright.
Pedophiles or child molesters? Pedophiles who look at child porn? Both? Which is it?
These "pedophile rings" are much less of a threat to us than the NSA's mass surveillance, the thugs working for the TSA, car accidents, the freedom-hating "for the children", or any number of other things. To begin with, most of it's just witch hunt nonsense. I'm sure some of these rings do exist, but the threat is greatly exaggerated.
Besides, why just children? Why not adult rape victims? Why are children put on such a pedestal? I for one don't think that children are magically more important than adults.
A nonexistent threat to myself? What are you even referring to?
And I think it's amazing that you "for the children" losers are so concerned with something that in large part isn't even a significant problem to begin with. Car accidents (and many other things) are more of a concern to me than bogeymen like terrorists or child molesters.
In fact, the real concern here is all the scumbags who take advantage of "We need to save the children!" fools and get them to support laws which violate our fundamental liberties and privacy. They're much more of a threat than child molesters or terrorists will ever be. Most of the 'threats' to us are in our own governments.
Perhaps it is not the educational system that has failed us
It is. It's based on faulty standardized tests that test only for rote memorization, teaching to these faulty standardized tests, useless busywork that requires only rote memorization, and a one-size-fits-all curriculum.
That's not to say there aren't some other factors at work here, but by and large, our 'educational' system is anything but educational. You can't expect many people to come to a deep understanding of the material if all you do is encourage rote memorization.
I don't think I've seen anyone argue that the distribution of child porn isn't a problem.
It's a problem in the sense of privacy, but I don't think it should be forbidden. If rapists act based on other people's demand for more, then their actions are their own and no one else's. We need to stop people willing to rape others, regardless of whether or not they're raping children. But adults' lives are only about half as valuable as children's lives according to society, so good luck with that.
I have seen people argue that the First Amendment permits it, regardless of whether it's problematic or not.
I'm not. I grow tired of people treating adults as if their lives are worth less than the lives of children, and I will not sacrifice our fundamental liberties in exchange for 'safety' from bogeymen, even if that safety is real. Freedom is what's important.
As the facts come forth we will know more. If the accusations are true then let the offenders be castrated and tortured to death. I will volunteer to do it with a rusty blade.
There's absolutely no accountability or standards of evidence. Even if they are true, though, by revealing that you support the death penalty (and torture), you've revealed yourself to be a mere barbarian ruled by their emotions and desires for vengeance.
The real conspiracy, if one exists at all, is when freedom-hating scumbags conspire together to rile up with public with claims that we need to stop the pedophiles ("child molester" is a better term) and get rid of all child porn, just so they can push through laws which violate our constitution, our freedoms, and our privacy.
Vigilante 'justice' just ends up with lots of collateral damage. Plus, I would think that they would want to go after *child molesters*, not merely someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Pedophiles aren't necessarily child molesters, and vice versa.
We don't need more "Think of the children!" witch hunts; our society has too many of those already.
If there's even a 0.0000000001% chance that something is a credible threat, you can't take any chances. That's why you never see anyone get in a car; it's too dangerous.
I also find it funny that you mention slippery slopes in response to a provably real slippery slope. Authorities have no problem defining your precious 'protected speech' as harmful.
Saying something and proving it are two different things. If you believe in baseless rumors (and yes, even if everyone says it's true, that doesn't make it so) and take actions that harm others, you're responsible for the damages.
You don't think that deliberately causing a panic with the intent to hurt people is an action?
No, it is speech. Panicking and harming others is an action.
If so, then if a man literally holds a gun to your head (and, for that matter, the heads of those close to you) and said he will kill you unless you aid him in stealing all the jewellery from the jewellery store, are you fully responsible for your actions?
Holding a gun to someone's head is an action, loaded or not. The speech isn't the issue.
Does a real fire in a packed theater force people to act?
No, but in that case, it is justifiable to get out of the theater. If you hurt someone on your way out, it is *still* your fault, but it may not always be punishable.
Suppose you set such a fire
Jesus, you're an idiot. I'm tired of this. Almost every single one of your examples can be brushed aside just by saying, "Please learn the difference between actions and speech." This is about pure speech. Stop mixing actions and speech, and putting forth examples that show actions combined with speech. I'm not interested in responding to any more of your offtopic examples.
Credible threats were never considered to be protected free speech by basically any society.
Many people in society are also authoritarians. I often find myself disagreeing with the ignorant majority, so appealing to society's 'wisdom' isn't going to help you.
Society also gives you the NSA, the TSA, DUI checkpoints, protest permits, free speech zones, and a number of other unconstitutional (in the US) things, so have fun with that.
And how do you feel about someone yelling "fire!" in a theater?
You do realize that same court case was used to suppress war protestors, correct?
As for how I feel about it, I don't like it. If someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and people panic and hurt others, it is the fault of the people who panic and hurt others.
But I do support the theater owner's right to throw people out who scream random things while others are trying to watch a movie or what have you, so this is a non-problem anyway.
Often speech is an action itself.
Speech does not possess people and force them to act, so you are mistaken.
if you think a country that censors child porn is exactly the same as one that censors political speech, you're only announcing yourself as a moron who doesn't understand the topic
Actually, I didn't say they're exactly the same, since they're different types of speech being censored. However, government censorship is always wrong, so I oppose it.
And I'm already well aware that you're an incurable authoritarian much like cold fjord, so you're in good company.
Re:What's the difference between China and EU?
on
China Cuts Off Some VPNs
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
When free speech threatens innocent lives
It doesn't. Actions threaten innocent lives. Rape, physical assault, believing and acting on baseless rumors in harmful ways, and murder are harmful. A video or picture is only subjectively offensive at most.
these things should not be allowed in a free society for damned good reasons.
The society you want is not free at all, as it places restrictions upon one of the most fundamental rights based on completely flawed reasoning.
And if anyone thinks they should be, let them and their loved ones be the first victims
Victims of freedom of speech? You need to learn the difference between action and speech.
All I can say is that as long as authoritarians such as yourself exist, we'll need to continuously improve technologies that help us keep our privacy to reduce the risk of being harassed for saying things that you don't like.
What? You seem to be anti-free speech; the difference is that you label anything you don't like as Not True Free Speech, and then any restrictions you place on people don't count as restrictions on free speech.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if it created demand, someone's actions are their own. No one has to rape to respond to "demand," so if they do, it's their fault.
Your lack of compassion for our fundamental liberties and your involvement with the illogical "for the children" crowd have been noted.
You don't get to decide who I do or don't have compassion for, you ignorant fool, just like I don't get to decide that for you. Just because I don't worship children and place their lives above all else does not mean I have no compassion for rape victims. But do note that I have compassion for all rape victims, including those who are children.
Introducing logic into a topic where people are screaming to burn the witches is never a bad thing, and it doesn't mean that you lack compassion for victims. I have no interest in your conspiracy theories or your exaggerated bogeymen, but that does not mean I feel no compassion for those who are raped.
While copyright isn't popular around here, the fact remains that a lot of people manage to make money by producing easily copyable content.
Yes, and they might even be able to do that without copyright. We have no idea what our society would look like if copyright just magically vanished. Businesses, instead of abusing copyright to get what they want, would have to find alternative means of making money. Would they be successful? Again, copyright's effectiveness has not been scientifically proven, so no one knows.
And it's a lot easier to do so if the content is legal.
Indeed, and that's the main difference, not the lack of copyright.
Pedophiles or child molesters? Pedophiles who look at child porn? Both? Which is it?
These "pedophile rings" are much less of a threat to us than the NSA's mass surveillance, the thugs working for the TSA, car accidents, the freedom-hating "for the children", or any number of other things. To begin with, most of it's just witch hunt nonsense. I'm sure some of these rings do exist, but the threat is greatly exaggerated.
Besides, why just children? Why not adult rape victims? Why are children put on such a pedestal? I for one don't think that children are magically more important than adults.
A nonexistent threat to myself? What are you even referring to?
And I think it's amazing that you "for the children" losers are so concerned with something that in large part isn't even a significant problem to begin with. Car accidents (and many other things) are more of a concern to me than bogeymen like terrorists or child molesters.
In fact, the real concern here is all the scumbags who take advantage of "We need to save the children!" fools and get them to support laws which violate our fundamental liberties and privacy. They're much more of a threat than child molesters or terrorists will ever be. Most of the 'threats' to us are in our own governments.
Perhaps it is not the educational system that has failed us
It is. It's based on faulty standardized tests that test only for rote memorization, teaching to these faulty standardized tests, useless busywork that requires only rote memorization, and a one-size-fits-all curriculum.
That's not to say there aren't some other factors at work here, but by and large, our 'educational' system is anything but educational. You can't expect many people to come to a deep understanding of the material if all you do is encourage rote memorization.
Unlike legal adult porn, there isn't any copyright protection, which really cuts down on the potential profits.
Only if you accept that copyrights are effective in the first place, something which I've yet to see be scientifically proven.
Being a pedophile is also different from being a child molester or even someone who looks at child porn.
Try googling "pedophile ring". Organized pedophilia is hardly hypothetical.
Mostly just witch hunts and conspiracy theories.
I don't think I've seen anyone argue that the distribution of child porn isn't a problem.
It's a problem in the sense of privacy, but I don't think it should be forbidden. If rapists act based on other people's demand for more, then their actions are their own and no one else's. We need to stop people willing to rape others, regardless of whether or not they're raping children. But adults' lives are only about half as valuable as children's lives according to society, so good luck with that.
I have seen people argue that the First Amendment permits it, regardless of whether it's problematic or not.
This.
I am swayed.
I'm not. I grow tired of people treating adults as if their lives are worth less than the lives of children, and I will not sacrifice our fundamental liberties in exchange for 'safety' from bogeymen, even if that safety is real. Freedom is what's important.
As the facts come forth we will know more. If the accusations are true then let the offenders be castrated and tortured to death. I will volunteer to do it with a rusty blade.
There's absolutely no accountability or standards of evidence. Even if they are true, though, by revealing that you support the death penalty (and torture), you've revealed yourself to be a mere barbarian ruled by their emotions and desires for vengeance.
Like everyone I think fighting pedopornograhy is a good thing
I think catching the rapists is a good thing. Government thugs censoring information should be condemned.
Someone isn't necessarily guilty of anything just because they're a pedophile.
There probably is.
The real conspiracy, if one exists at all, is when freedom-hating scumbags conspire together to rile up with public with claims that we need to stop the pedophiles ("child molester" is a better term) and get rid of all child porn, just so they can push through laws which violate our constitution, our freedoms, and our privacy.
Vigilante 'justice' just ends up with lots of collateral damage. Plus, I would think that they would want to go after *child molesters*, not merely someone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children. Pedophiles aren't necessarily child molesters, and vice versa.
We don't need more "Think of the children!" witch hunts; our society has too many of those already.
If there's even a 0.0000000001% chance that something is a credible threat, you can't take any chances. That's why you never see anyone get in a car; it's too dangerous.
I also find it funny that you mention slippery slopes in response to a provably real slippery slope. Authorities have no problem defining your precious 'protected speech' as harmful.
Saying something and proving it are two different things. If you believe in baseless rumors (and yes, even if everyone says it's true, that doesn't make it so) and take actions that harm others, you're responsible for the damages.
You don't think that deliberately causing a panic with the intent to hurt people is an action?
No, it is speech. Panicking and harming others is an action.
If so, then if a man literally holds a gun to your head (and, for that matter, the heads of those close to you) and said he will kill you unless you aid him in stealing all the jewellery from the jewellery store, are you fully responsible for your actions?
Holding a gun to someone's head is an action, loaded or not. The speech isn't the issue.
Does a real fire in a packed theater force people to act?
No, but in that case, it is justifiable to get out of the theater. If you hurt someone on your way out, it is *still* your fault, but it may not always be punishable.
Suppose you set such a fire
Jesus, you're an idiot. I'm tired of this. Almost every single one of your examples can be brushed aside just by saying, "Please learn the difference between actions and speech." This is about pure speech. Stop mixing actions and speech, and putting forth examples that show actions combined with speech. I'm not interested in responding to any more of your offtopic examples.
Credible threats were never considered to be protected free speech by basically any society.
Many people in society are also authoritarians. I often find myself disagreeing with the ignorant majority, so appealing to society's 'wisdom' isn't going to help you.
Society also gives you the NSA, the TSA, DUI checkpoints, protest permits, free speech zones, and a number of other unconstitutional (in the US) things, so have fun with that.
so you're ok with child porn and death threats?
What part of my position is not clear? Yes.
can i take photos of you having sex with your significant other and put it on a billboard in your hometown? it's just free speech dude
Yes, it is. You'd have to trespass on private property to do that, though, which would be a crime.
everything has limits. including free speech.
Only if we decide to limit it. There goes your "logic."
classic example: yelling fire in a crowded theatre
If you choose to panic and hurt others, that's your fault, not the speaker's.
it just makes me smarter than you
But apparently you're not smart enough to understand the difference between action and speech.
And how do you feel about someone yelling "fire!" in a theater?
You do realize that same court case was used to suppress war protestors, correct?
As for how I feel about it, I don't like it. If someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, and people panic and hurt others, it is the fault of the people who panic and hurt others.
But I do support the theater owner's right to throw people out who scream random things while others are trying to watch a movie or what have you, so this is a non-problem anyway.
Often speech is an action itself.
Speech does not possess people and force them to act, so you are mistaken.
Just out of curiosity, where do you stand on defamation?
If someone believes a baseless rumors and acts on it in a harmful way, it is their fault, not the speaker's.
or should their freedom of speech be respected?
It should.
if you think a country that censors child porn is exactly the same as one that censors political speech, you're only announcing yourself as a moron who doesn't understand the topic
Actually, I didn't say they're exactly the same, since they're different types of speech being censored. However, government censorship is always wrong, so I oppose it.
And I'm already well aware that you're an incurable authoritarian much like cold fjord, so you're in good company.
When free speech threatens innocent lives
It doesn't. Actions threaten innocent lives. Rape, physical assault, believing and acting on baseless rumors in harmful ways, and murder are harmful. A video or picture is only subjectively offensive at most.
these things should not be allowed in a free society for damned good reasons.
The society you want is not free at all, as it places restrictions upon one of the most fundamental rights based on completely flawed reasoning.
And if anyone thinks they should be, let them and their loved ones be the first victims
Victims of freedom of speech? You need to learn the difference between action and speech.
All I can say is that as long as authoritarians such as yourself exist, we'll need to continuously improve technologies that help us keep our privacy to reduce the risk of being harassed for saying things that you don't like.
What? You seem to be anti-free speech; the difference is that you label anything you don't like as Not True Free Speech, and then any restrictions you place on people don't count as restrictions on free speech.