Likewise, North Korea... don't setup a new one, just make it merge with South Korea, everyone will be better off.
Except the countless thousands that will die as a result of this, the people who have their money taken to fund the useless war, and all the people who will have to rebuild the country and suffer from the rebellions that will inevitably happen. Then people will have to deal with the South Korean government, which is only better, but still far from good.
Sometimes the adults in the room have to do what is best for everyone, even if the kids don't like it.
I don't like the world police mentality, and nor do I care for preemptive warfare. They're a sovereign country and we have no pressing reason to invade unless they physically attack us.
So you feel that the victims got insulted/offended?
If they claim they did, then I don't see why I wouldn't believe them. In any case, this is irrelevant and why you bring it up, I don't know.
Wow! For starters: the laws are not about 'feeling offended'. They are about 'objective' misspeech.
Which boils down to subjective nonsense all the same, even if people like to pretend it's objective.
The free speech 'amendment' in the US constitution is a _fucking_ amendment... that litterally means: addition.
You have absolutely zero clue as to how the US constitution works, and it shows. Any powers not explicitly given to the government, it did *not* have. Some of the founding fathers objected to these amendments because they feared that people would get the idea that the constitution is merely a list of rights that The People have, and any rights not listed are ones they don't have. They tried to clarify, but apparently that's not enough for some people.
and there are plenty of 'other rules' in the USA's constitution that have a 'higher value'.
What are you even referring to?
Comming now to your retarded name
My account name is irrelevant, and you're an idiot for bringing it up. How does "angel'o'sphere" relate to the topic? It doesn't. You could apply your stupid logic to just about any account name here.
The rest of your post is wrong. There was no arrest
I said that it's a violation of people's free speech. And nonsense, anyway.
There was no arrest and there was no violation of free speech (because the tweat was not directed against the rulers/politicians/government but citizens... go damn read your constitution!)
Where in the US constitution (where I live) does it say that people only have freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing government? It doesn't. Why don't *you* read it, you ignorant fool? Unless you thought I lived elsewhere, but in that case, don't make random assumptions about where I live.
Any such country would be an authoritarian hellhole, as people should be free to voice their opinions, even if those opinions are offensive. Indeed, popular opinions don't even truly need as much protection; it's the unpopular ones that people want to censor.
But I wouldn't mind sending our forces in to remove the North Korean government and return the land to South Korea...
I would. Fund the pointless, unjust war yourself, if you want it so badly; don't take my money to do it. I don't much care for randomly invading sovereign countries and killing thousands to install puppet governments that our government likes.
And South Korea's government may be better, but it's far from freedom-minded.
Because it's a violation of people's free speech, and giving people the right to not be offended is absolutely absurd in every possible way, given that offense is a personal problem, and that it's completely subjective. People who disagree would be better off moving to North Korea.
Here's what I quoted: "Was the tweet offensive? Yes. " Offense is subjective, so saying that the tweet was offensive makes no sense; you need to say that it's offensive in your own opinion. Subjectivity is something lawmakers and courts don't seem to understand, so don't pretend this isn't a problem.
So you don't feel that the victims got insulted/offended?
What an intelligent way to interpret a post saying that offense is subjective!
but I guess you are a kind of autist
I guess that would make you an Internet psychologist who erroneously diagnoses people with mental illnesses when they say things you don't like.
Except that the "choke hold" had nothing to do with Garner's death. His death was caused by lying on the ground with a man kneeling on his back.
I just said that he was given a choke hold. And it's unjust excessive force either way.
If you succeed, people will say that the choke hold was already banned and no policy changes would be made
Incorrect. The problem is that officers are rarely prosecuted for anything. It's a separate problem.
Every time you say "choke hold," you open yourself to debunking.
No, you open yourself up to pedants who think they're debunking you with their nonsensical pedantry to distract from the fact that government thugs murdered someone.
The courts in the US often ignore the actual constitution in favor of granting the government more power. That's where that "obscenity" nonsense came from.
So yes, in practice, the US isn't as good as it could be when it comes to free speech.
There is nothing brave about a criminal fighting a cop, its just an example of stupidity.
There's nothing brave or free about a situation where government thugs will use excessive force against someone who merely resists them, which is what is happening. I expect cops to behave absolutely professionally and to respect people's liberties even in extreme circumstances.
Absolute nonsense. Blame the people who choose to act inappropriately and abuse others. You're acting as if the ones who choose to use excessive force are blameless, but they're the actual problem.
The police are authorized to apply force to enforce the laws.
But not excessive force, and not when someone is saying they can't breath. Certainly not that choke hold which was against policy.
It's unfortunate that Garner died, but had he not resisted, he'd be alive today.
Why don't you move to North Korea? I don't know if you realize this, but the US is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Everyone should be extremely cautious and critical of authority figures, not give them the benefit of the doubt or let them off when they screw up (intentionally or not).
If the cops hadn't applied overwhelming force and had actually listened when he said that he couldn't breath, he would be alive. Why don't you blame the people who actually used the force? They made their own decision to do so.
The bottom line is, the cops are supposed to respect people's liberties, have legal authority over others, and are supposed to be trained professionals. They deserve no mercy when it comes to being prosecuted, but prosecutors are of course biased in their favor, so good luck punishing them.
You have a bigger chance of getting into a car accident. Does no one understand risk management? It seems that everyone is afraid of extremely improbable threats for no reason.
I would not have as much of a problem with this if the government did not practically force companies to offer it and ISPs made it opt-in only (i.e. you have to call and specifically ask for it, rather than have this hijacking nonsense).
What's immoral about offering your users more choice?
Threats by the government do not qualify as voluntary.
So that means any setup screen is censorship.
In cases like this, where they force you to answer whether or not you want censorship because the government threatened companies into providing filters that block things they don't like? Yes.
And one of the biggest problems is the government's ability to threaten the companies to get sites blocked. The censorship tools are in place, and this is not good.
They were being threatened with the democratic process!
Incorrect. Threatening companies into doing immoral things is immoral, unjust, and undemocratic. The "free press" isn't free at all, either, and oftentimes has an authoritarian agenda. The idea that a small group of whiners who support filtering should have so much influence is absolutely insane.
It's not default on!
If I can't access content without making a choice, then as far as I'm concerned, it's default on.
If over 90% of the population do something it's not a social taboo!
This is not necessarily so. It's all about perception. Lots of people can feel that something is bad all the while doing it themselves. We see this often with religion, where people continue "sinning" and trying to fight against basic urges.
If they just roll over then it was never a big issue in the first place.
Maybe not to companies looking to secure their bottom line, but it is a big deal when the government can just make threats as it pleases to subvert the democratic process and get companies to do whatever they want them to.
A default on filter is simply intolerable.
That's over 90% of their customer base. It's hardly worthwhile information.
It's easily worthwhile. You don't need to go after everyone. Even if something is indeed popular, that doesn't mean it isn't a social taboo.
Seems fair. Get onto your ISP. Request a "religion" filter.
It will never happen, because these censorship-loving fools only want material they don't like blocked. And it shouldn't happen, anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Likewise, North Korea... don't setup a new one, just make it merge with South Korea, everyone will be better off.
Except the countless thousands that will die as a result of this, the people who have their money taken to fund the useless war, and all the people who will have to rebuild the country and suffer from the rebellions that will inevitably happen. Then people will have to deal with the South Korean government, which is only better, but still far from good.
Sometimes the adults in the room have to do what is best for everyone, even if the kids don't like it.
I don't like the world police mentality, and nor do I care for preemptive warfare. They're a sovereign country and we have no pressing reason to invade unless they physically attack us.
So you feel that the victims got insulted/offended?
If they claim they did, then I don't see why I wouldn't believe them. In any case, this is irrelevant and why you bring it up, I don't know.
Wow! For starters: the laws are not about 'feeling offended'. They are about 'objective' misspeech.
Which boils down to subjective nonsense all the same, even if people like to pretend it's objective.
The free speech 'amendment' in the US constitution is a _fucking_ amendment ... that litterally means: addition.
You have absolutely zero clue as to how the US constitution works, and it shows. Any powers not explicitly given to the government, it did *not* have. Some of the founding fathers objected to these amendments because they feared that people would get the idea that the constitution is merely a list of rights that The People have, and any rights not listed are ones they don't have. They tried to clarify, but apparently that's not enough for some people.
and there are plenty of 'other rules' in the USA's constitution that have a 'higher value'.
What are you even referring to?
Comming now to your retarded name
My account name is irrelevant, and you're an idiot for bringing it up. How does "angel'o'sphere" relate to the topic? It doesn't. You could apply your stupid logic to just about any account name here.
The rest of your post is wrong. There was no arrest
I said that it's a violation of people's free speech. And nonsense, anyway.
There was no arrest and there was no violation of free speech (because the tweat was not directed against the rulers/politicians/government but citizens ... go damn read your constitution!)
Where in the US constitution (where I live) does it say that people only have freedom of speech when it comes to criticizing government? It doesn't. Why don't *you* read it, you ignorant fool? Unless you thought I lived elsewhere, but in that case, don't make random assumptions about where I live.
Any such country would be an authoritarian hellhole, as people should be free to voice their opinions, even if those opinions are offensive. Indeed, popular opinions don't even truly need as much protection; it's the unpopular ones that people want to censor.
And for some reason you seem to feel offended
You're a bad psychic.
But I wouldn't mind sending our forces in to remove the North Korean government and return the land to South Korea...
I would. Fund the pointless, unjust war yourself, if you want it so badly; don't take my money to do it. I don't much care for randomly invading sovereign countries and killing thousands to install puppet governments that our government likes.
And South Korea's government may be better, but it's far from freedom-minded.
Sigh, why are you all complaining?
Because it's a violation of people's free speech, and giving people the right to not be offended is absolutely absurd in every possible way, given that offense is a personal problem, and that it's completely subjective. People who disagree would be better off moving to North Korea.
However, a lot of dickwads think this gives them free license to be as obnoxious and disagreeable as all hell because muh freddums.
It does. Your offense is your problem.
We are supposed to legislate and censor ourselves in order not to go out of our way to offend people
I disagree. Many people are too easily offended, and there is no reason to tone things down for the inferior ones among us.
because offending people is the mark of an immature mind.
What is and is not "immature" is subjective, but don't let that stop you from treating it as if it's a fact.
Deliberately saying things you know will hurt people
There is plenty of speech that people know will offend someone, and yet it is their honest opinion.
is just you being a cunt.
What's far, far worse are authoritarian pieces of garbage who violate people's fundamental right to free speech.
What do you mean? He did not offend YOU?
Correct.
Here's what I quoted: "Was the tweet offensive? Yes. " Offense is subjective, so saying that the tweet was offensive makes no sense; you need to say that it's offensive in your own opinion. Subjectivity is something lawmakers and courts don't seem to understand, so don't pretend this isn't a problem.
So you don't feel that the victims got insulted/offended?
What an intelligent way to interpret a post saying that offense is subjective!
but I guess you are a kind of autist
I guess that would make you an Internet psychologist who erroneously diagnoses people with mental illnesses when they say things you don't like.
Except that the "choke hold" had nothing to do with Garner's death. His death was caused by lying on the ground with a man kneeling on his back.
I just said that he was given a choke hold. And it's unjust excessive force either way.
If you succeed, people will say that the choke hold was already banned and no policy changes would be made
Incorrect. The problem is that officers are rarely prosecuted for anything. It's a separate problem.
Every time you say "choke hold," you open yourself to debunking.
No, you open yourself up to pedants who think they're debunking you with their nonsensical pedantry to distract from the fact that government thugs murdered someone.
The courts in the US often ignore the actual constitution in favor of granting the government more power. That's where that "obscenity" nonsense came from.
So yes, in practice, the US isn't as good as it could be when it comes to free speech.
Was the tweet offensive? Yes.
Not to me, it wasn't. That's the nature of the thing: It's utterly subjective.
but the reasons were sound
No, they weren't.
No one is exempt from criticism. Not the UK, and not the US.
When being arrested you are no longer at liberty
You still have plenty of liberties that the police must respect.
There is nothing brave about a criminal fighting a cop, its just an example of stupidity.
There's nothing brave or free about a situation where government thugs will use excessive force against someone who merely resists them, which is what is happening. I expect cops to behave absolutely professionally and to respect people's liberties even in extreme circumstances.
People who are compliant tend not to get shot.
"Comply or die." -The land of the free and the home of the brave
Absolute nonsense. Blame the people who choose to act inappropriately and abuse others. You're acting as if the ones who choose to use excessive force are blameless, but they're the actual problem.
Garner was resisting arrest.
Barely at all.
The police are authorized to apply force to enforce the laws.
But not excessive force, and not when someone is saying they can't breath. Certainly not that choke hold which was against policy.
It's unfortunate that Garner died, but had he not resisted, he'd be alive today.
Why don't you move to North Korea? I don't know if you realize this, but the US is supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave." Everyone should be extremely cautious and critical of authority figures, not give them the benefit of the doubt or let them off when they screw up (intentionally or not).
If the cops hadn't applied overwhelming force and had actually listened when he said that he couldn't breath, he would be alive. Why don't you blame the people who actually used the force? They made their own decision to do so.
The bottom line is, the cops are supposed to respect people's liberties, have legal authority over others, and are supposed to be trained professionals. They deserve no mercy when it comes to being prosecuted, but prosecutors are of course biased in their favor, so good luck punishing them.
Looked like a simple example to help people better understand the problem to me.
You have a bigger chance of getting into a car accident. Does no one understand risk management? It seems that everyone is afraid of extremely improbable threats for no reason.
I would like to know what the lies used to topple the Taliban in Afghanistan were.
The lie was that sending our military into another country to hunt down a bunch of nutters is justifiable.
I would not have as much of a problem with this if the government did not practically force companies to offer it and ISPs made it opt-in only (i.e. you have to call and specifically ask for it, rather than have this hijacking nonsense).
What's immoral about offering your users more choice?
Threats by the government do not qualify as voluntary.
So that means any setup screen is censorship.
In cases like this, where they force you to answer whether or not you want censorship because the government threatened companies into providing filters that block things they don't like? Yes.
And one of the biggest problems is the government's ability to threaten the companies to get sites blocked. The censorship tools are in place, and this is not good.
They were being threatened with the democratic process!
Incorrect. Threatening companies into doing immoral things is immoral, unjust, and undemocratic. The "free press" isn't free at all, either, and oftentimes has an authoritarian agenda. The idea that a small group of whiners who support filtering should have so much influence is absolutely insane.
It's not default on!
If I can't access content without making a choice, then as far as I'm concerned, it's default on.
If over 90% of the population do something it's not a social taboo!
This is not necessarily so. It's all about perception. Lots of people can feel that something is bad all the while doing it themselves. We see this often with religion, where people continue "sinning" and trying to fight against basic urges.
If they just roll over then it was never a big issue in the first place.
Maybe not to companies looking to secure their bottom line, but it is a big deal when the government can just make threats as it pleases to subvert the democratic process and get companies to do whatever they want them to.
A default on filter is simply intolerable.
That's over 90% of their customer base. It's hardly worthwhile information.
It's easily worthwhile. You don't need to go after everyone. Even if something is indeed popular, that doesn't mean it isn't a social taboo.
Seems fair. Get onto your ISP. Request a "religion" filter.
It will never happen, because these censorship-loving fools only want material they don't like blocked. And it shouldn't happen, anyway.