"No, all that's illegal is denying that the holocaust (Shoah) happened or glorifying the Nazis and their "ideology" or promoting genocide. I'd compare it to making child pornography illegal."
Why? Who's being exploited without their consent, statutory or otherwise?
And as long as verboten topics are being picked on a case-by-case basis, just who exactly is doing the deciding? By what standards?
"Other than statements about Nazis, central European society is actually a lot less restrictive about speech than the US"
Which somehow makes the subjects where speech is restricted "OK?"
"someone mentioned the Superbowl tits above, there are no fines for swearing on TV,"
People are actually working on that. Most of that hinges on a 30-year-old Supreme Court decision (specifically "FCC v. Pacifica Foundation") and (as a layman) I suspect all that is needed is one good push to overturn it, if for no other reason than because Congressionally-mandated technology like v-chips really take a bite out of the "pervasiveness" arguments (if nothing else).
But even in this, a policy where all too many Americans are in agreement with, there has been a great deal of hand-wringing involved and vocal dissent, including 4 out of 9 Supreme Court justices in this specific decision. I'm not sure I've seen anything of this sort in enacting and upholding, say, this specific anti-Nazi law in French courts, or else we probably wouldn't be seeing Yahoo! playing these jurisdiction games.
(Ironicly, the radio broadcast that triggered the case was a recording of some of George Carlin's satirical comments on the policy.)
"The point is that Europeans are often prepared to give up some rights of the majority in favour of protecting a minority."
That's the basis of forming democratic governments to begin with. The question is, though, whether such anti-speech laws are really a restriction on a minority (those few people who would espouse such views) for the sake of the "sensibilities" of the majority. You can guess my answer. After all, these laws don't specifically target speech that directly threatens that minority group so much as a blankent order against voicing a dissenting opinion (however ill-founded that opinion may be).
Please feel free to prove me wrong.
"I guess you could compare it to banning the Confederate Flag in order to protect victims of slavery and racism."
Which they don't. Most of the recent turmoil over the flag centered about South Carolina flying a Confederate flag over its statehouse. Groups like the NAACP that took umbrage boycotted the state to effect a policy change as opposed to seeking legal or legislative action against display of the flag in general, and to my knowledge nobody who has proposed a general, legal ban on displaying the flag has been taken seriously.
The closest thing we have to what you're talking about are laws in most states that require speakers of "hate speech" to identify themselves. If it comes to light that what is being said is specifically threatening (e. g. "Kill these abortionists"), the offending individuals are then taken to task. So long as what is being said is general and vague, they're allowed to keep saying it.
Like I said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility.
"And what about your right to free speech in the US if you happened to be a communist?"
So long as you're not openly advocating violence against specific people, you get to talk and put your candidates on the ballot, same as everybody else.
"by refusing to by into either format until the company bigwigs kiss and make up their minds."
And when they do they'll form a consortium to charge obnoxious licensing fees for the technology while keeping little "features" like DRM in the standard definition. Kinda like the DVD Consortium to begin with.
No thanks, I'll stick with the capitalistic competition.
"Yet France stood back and waited to see which side would win the civil war."
Interesting how you single out the French there and not the other major European powers (like, say, the British) for doing that. After all, who was it who built the CSS Alabama?
Secondly, what would you rather had them done? For the federal government, the civil war was just that: a wholly internal matter. It certainly wasn't the North that was seeking international intervention. At most, their endeavors abroad were focused on preventing recognition of the Confederacy abroad. France was one of the countries that agreed to this, which resulted in a certain Confederate ship not staying in Cherbourg as long as they would have liked (or perhaps a century and a half longer, depending on how you look at things).
Of course, the captain managed to escape and found refuge in some other nearby country...
"since the naval blockade was cutting into their business, if, in France's mind, the war was not close to a resolution."
Of course, it's all about the economics. Nations either wage war or make peace entirely because of their wallets. I guess that makes the First World War one great big freakin' anomally...
"You'll be surprised to learn that there is free speech in Europe."
But it's perhaps not as liberally applied as it is in the US. As has been pointed out around here ad nauseam, most fundamental legal documents in Western countries say something to the effect of "the people have freedom of speech," essentially leaving it open to interpretation as to just how much freedom they are granted (by their government, presumably). The national charter in the US says "thou shalt not" to the national government with reguards to speech laws and another amendment forces all member states to follow suit.
"Not only that, you will be surprised that there are far fewer people making use of their free speech to put forward outlandish theories."
Apparently because it is illegal to do so. However, this begs the question of just who it is that decides what is outlandish and what is not, and what standards are used.
And is it that fewer people believe these theories, or simply because fewer people feel safe to admit they believe them?
"Name another industrialised nation where creationism is even being discussed as a topic for public school curricula..."
Somebody else's state, somebody else's problem. That's one of the nice things about federalism.
"Anyways, there's always limits to free speech, even in the home country of the first amendment (think slander, think inaccurate advertising (like Jay's vs. Lay's in Chicago a few weeks ago))."
How does freedom of speech equate to freedom from responsibility? Essentially, all the amendment says is that the government can't keep you from putting your foot in your mouth. And even then, in the case of slander, most (if not all) state constitutions guarantee that the truth can never be considered slander.
"What's more, the European press didn't censor itself in the runup to the Iraq war."
What are you looking for, free speech or forced speech? If you want the latter, please refer to the amendment three below this one.
"What good is free speech if it's unpatriotic to criticize the president's warmongering?"
"Don't we pay them to follow and enforce the law,"
Hrm... the law...
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech(.)
Come back when Congress passes an anti-Nazi law. Otherwise, though we may not agree with it, it's a matter of French law.
Now, if France tried to collect its fines out of Yahoo!'s US assets, then there'd be a problem; they'd run into article V of the same document. But all the court said is that Yahoo! can't protect its French assets in a US court simply because of where they're headquartered.
(So... when do companies start getting their US assets fined for not complying with US labor laws while operating overseas?)
"Why not just respect France's anti-Nazi law whilst doing business with the French?"
They have, to a point. The offending material was already yanked from yahoo.fr. The French court decision apparently stands over there in spite of that.
"You're obviously not thrilled about the situation, but it can be changed -- but it takes a lot of groundwork."
Ah, but is it worth the effort? I'd wager that for a lot of the potential customers for this device the answer is "no."
Re:One of the saddest things I'v ever read. AC1
on
Virtual Girlfriend
·
· Score: 1
"A hugging pillow would do a lot of good to mildly depressed people. Even if you don't think it should work, apparently the body still responds."
Yes, but when you and some of your (male) friends are sitting around on the sofa watching Stargate and one of them notices the way you're unconsciously clutching a throw pillow to your torso, you start to get comments...
Ah, but 12 oz. cans in the US are bigger than 12 oz. cans in the UK. And the US fluid ounce (along the rest of our volume measurements) has been more consistent over the past century or two than either the UK version or the litererere. So *pbbbttt* to you, too!
<RANT> And another thing that bugs me about daily use of the metric system is the insistance on measuring things in mL instead of cL or even dL. Saying that your beer stein is "500 mL" suggests an accuracy to the nearest mL. Would you notice (let alone care) if you were served 499 mL of beer instead? What about 490 mL? </RANT>
I've never been very comfortable with disposable technology, reguardless of environmental ramifications or lack thereof. Hell, I'm still not comfortable with write-once media like CD-Rs, and even when I'm forced to use one I try to put as much information as possible on them to avoid wasting potential storage space.
So I see something like this, and just... no. I don't see myself willingly using it. If the refrigeration technology is so efficient, clean and/or inexpensive, put it into a reusable cooler instead of the disposable cans. You'd get the added benefits of economy of scale (both in price and refrigeration) and it won't be such a pain in the ass to dismantle the cans to recycle them.
"Now, if you could get your ex-girlfriend (or boyfriend, whatever) to install the trojan..."
Do you really want to know what she does for/to the guy she dumped you for? Might as well save both of you the trouble and pay some professional to punch you in the kidneys for you.
Yeah, because I want my computer terminal to work like a freakin' Wurlitzer! When I'm ready to code, I want to throw a lever and have this huge contraption the size of a VW rise out of the floor, complete with Phantom of the Opera music playing in the background! And I'll be dressed like Tuxedo Kamen to do it!
And if this conducts heat as well as ordinary aluminum, you can be sure that it will turn green. That, or you'll have a heart attack when you get the next electric bill...
"Oh thats good. The guy commits a traffic violation,"
No, he commits two felony offences (one of them being homicide) that his social status allowed him to wait out the statute of limitations on.
Perhaps DWI wasn't a felony back then (we've learned better since then), but manslaughter has probably been considered a felony in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts since at least the American Revolution.
"Clearly, given his history of reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident, he is likely to be a threat to the flight and should be barred from flying."
Would you want to sit next to someone on an airplane who has a history of "recklessly endangering" those around him?
"Here's another one. If you're convicted of slander your rights to free speech should be taken away."
Slander is a matter for civil litigation. Manslaughter is a felony. There are many things we as a society do not allow convicted felons to do.
"Really, why must people be forced to abide by this "rule" that civil disobedience means you have to accept the punishment for some bogus crime?"
Every person who understads the meaning of the adjective "civil."
"Would it have been more noble or correct if George Washington et al. had meekly submitted themselves to be executed for treason?"
Spoken like someone who has no idea the ways Washington and his colleages bent over backwards to try to find a peaceful solution. Even after the first outbreak of violence and armed resistance in April of 1775, it was still well over a year of failed efforts to find a peaceful resolution before the governments of the colonies accepted that seeking independence through open rebellion was the only option.
"Should all those slaves who escaped from their plantations have willingly surrendered themselves and gone back to face the lash to fit these immutable laws of protest that you are subscribing to?"
No, you fight the extradition in court, like Dredd Scott. You do not follow the course of John Brown, not if you want people to agree with you and support you.
You will note that both the Battle at Lexington Green and the Dredd Scott court decision were, on the surface, "defeats" for those who we now consider to be in the right. However, those tactical defeats were also stratiegic victories, doing far more to win "hearts and minds" over to the side of the people trying to fight "The Man."
Note in the article description there's mention of the (in)famous RIAA litigations against a grandmother and a young girl. Nobody who hears about those will forget about them any time soon, but nobody cares about the people who do everything they can to buck "The System" in loud and obnoxious ways.
"Being allowed to the pants off of people for garden variety mp3 sharing is a perversion of justice, everybody knows it,"
"Years ago my father pointed out one of the reasons he prefers Nordstrom: they have plenty of seating. Husbands often wait a long time while their wives find clothing. I challenge you to find any major national retailer other than Nordstrom that provides plentiful and seating for their customers."
Other major retailers have tool and/or electronics departments that the stores hope those husbands would browse instead of sitting.
They're managers. It's their job to know a thing or two about what their employees are doing. If they are unable or unwilling to do the job they're paid for, why should I do it for free?
Slashdot Mirror
"No, all that's illegal is denying that the holocaust (Shoah) happened or glorifying the Nazis and their "ideology" or promoting genocide. I'd compare it to making child pornography illegal."
Why? Who's being exploited without their consent, statutory or otherwise?
And as long as verboten topics are being picked on a case-by-case basis, just who exactly is doing the deciding? By what standards?
"Other than statements about Nazis, central European society is actually a lot less restrictive about speech than the US"
Which somehow makes the subjects where speech is restricted "OK?"
"someone mentioned the Superbowl tits above, there are no fines for swearing on TV,"
People are actually working on that. Most of that hinges on a 30-year-old Supreme Court decision (specifically "FCC v. Pacifica Foundation") and (as a layman) I suspect all that is needed is one good push to overturn it, if for no other reason than because Congressionally-mandated technology like v-chips really take a bite out of the "pervasiveness" arguments (if nothing else).
But even in this, a policy where all too many Americans are in agreement with, there has been a great deal of hand-wringing involved and vocal dissent, including 4 out of 9 Supreme Court justices in this specific decision. I'm not sure I've seen anything of this sort in enacting and upholding, say, this specific anti-Nazi law in French courts, or else we probably wouldn't be seeing Yahoo! playing these jurisdiction games.
(Ironicly, the radio broadcast that triggered the case was a recording of some of George Carlin's satirical comments on the policy.)
"The point is that Europeans are often prepared to give up some rights of the majority in favour of protecting a minority."
That's the basis of forming democratic governments to begin with. The question is, though, whether such anti-speech laws are really a restriction on a minority (those few people who would espouse such views) for the sake of the "sensibilities" of the majority. You can guess my answer. After all, these laws don't specifically target speech that directly threatens that minority group so much as a blankent order against voicing a dissenting opinion (however ill-founded that opinion may be).
Please feel free to prove me wrong.
"I guess you could compare it to banning the Confederate Flag in order to protect victims of slavery and racism."
Which they don't. Most of the recent turmoil over the flag centered about South Carolina flying a Confederate flag over its statehouse. Groups like the NAACP that took umbrage boycotted the state to effect a policy change as opposed to seeking legal or legislative action against display of the flag in general, and to my knowledge nobody who has proposed a general, legal ban on displaying the flag has been taken seriously.
The closest thing we have to what you're talking about are laws in most states that require speakers of "hate speech" to identify themselves. If it comes to light that what is being said is specifically threatening (e. g. "Kill these abortionists"), the offending individuals are then taken to task. So long as what is being said is general and vague, they're allowed to keep saying it.
Like I said before, freedom of speech is not freedom from responsibility.
"And what about your right to free speech in the US if you happened to be a communist?"
So long as you're not openly advocating violence against specific people, you get to talk and put your candidates on the ballot, same as everybody else.
"by refusing to by into either format until the company bigwigs kiss and make up their minds."
And when they do they'll form a consortium to charge obnoxious licensing fees for the technology while keeping little "features" like DRM in the standard definition. Kinda like the DVD Consortium to begin with.
No thanks, I'll stick with the capitalistic competition.
"Yet France stood back and waited to see which side would win the civil war."
Interesting how you single out the French there and not the other major European powers (like, say, the British) for doing that. After all, who was it who built the CSS Alabama?
Secondly, what would you rather had them done? For the federal government, the civil war was just that: a wholly internal matter. It certainly wasn't the North that was seeking international intervention. At most, their endeavors abroad were focused on preventing recognition of the Confederacy abroad. France was one of the countries that agreed to this, which resulted in a certain Confederate ship not staying in Cherbourg as long as they would have liked (or perhaps a century and a half longer, depending on how you look at things).
Of course, the captain managed to escape and found refuge in some other nearby country...
"since the naval blockade was cutting into their business, if, in France's mind, the war was not close to a resolution."
Of course, it's all about the economics. Nations either wage war or make peace entirely because of their wallets. I guess that makes the First World War one great big freakin' anomally...
"You'll be surprised to learn that there is free speech in Europe."
But it's perhaps not as liberally applied as it is in the US. As has been pointed out around here ad nauseam, most fundamental legal documents in Western countries say something to the effect of "the people have freedom of speech," essentially leaving it open to interpretation as to just how much freedom they are granted (by their government, presumably). The national charter in the US says "thou shalt not" to the national government with reguards to speech laws and another amendment forces all member states to follow suit.
"Not only that, you will be surprised that there are far fewer people making use of their free speech to put forward outlandish theories."
Apparently because it is illegal to do so. However, this begs the question of just who it is that decides what is outlandish and what is not, and what standards are used.
And is it that fewer people believe these theories, or simply because fewer people feel safe to admit they believe them?
"Name another industrialised nation where creationism is even being discussed as a topic for public school curricula..."
Somebody else's state, somebody else's problem. That's one of the nice things about federalism.
"Anyways, there's always limits to free speech, even in the home country of the first amendment (think slander, think inaccurate advertising (like Jay's vs. Lay's in Chicago a few weeks ago))."
How does freedom of speech equate to freedom from responsibility? Essentially, all the amendment says is that the government can't keep you from putting your foot in your mouth. And even then, in the case of slander, most (if not all) state constitutions guarantee that the truth can never be considered slander.
"What's more, the European press didn't censor itself in the runup to the Iraq war."
What are you looking for, free speech or forced speech? If you want the latter, please refer to the amendment three below this one.
"What good is free speech if it's unpatriotic to criticize the president's warmongering?"
The fact that it's not government-mandated.
Hrm... the law... Come back when Congress passes an anti-Nazi law. Otherwise, though we may not agree with it, it's a matter of French law.
Now, if France tried to collect its fines out of Yahoo!'s US assets, then there'd be a problem; they'd run into article V of the same document. But all the court said is that Yahoo! can't protect its French assets in a US court simply because of where they're headquartered.
(So... when do companies start getting their US assets fined for not complying with US labor laws while operating overseas?)
And it was the French that saved the Americans from saluting the king. Your point?
"Why not just respect France's anti-Nazi law whilst doing business with the French?"
They have, to a point. The offending material was already yanked from yahoo.fr. The French court decision apparently stands over there in spite of that.
"You're obviously not thrilled about the situation, but it can be changed -- but it takes a lot of groundwork."
Ah, but is it worth the effort? I'd wager that for a lot of the potential customers for this device the answer is "no."
"A hugging pillow would do a lot of good to mildly depressed people. Even if you don't think it should work, apparently the body still responds."
Yes, but when you and some of your (male) friends are sitting around on the sofa watching Stargate and one of them notices the way you're unconsciously clutching a throw pillow to your torso, you start to get comments...
"Stood there and watched the blue ionized air as it poured out of the reactor?"
You mean they got for free that "clean, healthy air" those Sharper Image hacks are trying to sell on TV for $400 each?
Ah, but 12 oz. cans in the US are bigger than 12 oz. cans in the UK. And the US fluid ounce (along the rest of our volume measurements) has been more consistent over the past century or two than either the UK version or the litererere. So *pbbbttt* to you, too!
<RANT>
And another thing that bugs me about daily use of the metric system is the insistance on measuring things in mL instead of cL or even dL. Saying that your beer stein is "500 mL" suggests an accuracy to the nearest mL. Would you notice (let alone care) if you were served 499 mL of beer instead? What about 490 mL?
</RANT>
I've never been very comfortable with disposable technology, reguardless of environmental ramifications or lack thereof. Hell, I'm still not comfortable with write-once media like CD-Rs, and even when I'm forced to use one I try to put as much information as possible on them to avoid wasting potential storage space.
So I see something like this, and just... no. I don't see myself willingly using it. If the refrigeration technology is so efficient, clean and/or inexpensive, put it into a reusable cooler instead of the disposable cans. You'd get the added benefits of economy of scale (both in price and refrigeration) and it won't be such a pain in the ass to dismantle the cans to recycle them.
Or am I the only crazy person who cares?
"Unless they increase the format size by an order of magnitude, broadband speeds will catch up within the year."
"Broadband" is what happens when I PPP multilink over the second phone line.
Hell, right now, with only one channel, my connection times are in the 20-30 kbit range.
"Dude... you realize that you don't have to watch the movies, right?"
The force is strong with this one...
"Now, if you could get your ex-girlfriend (or boyfriend, whatever) to install the trojan..."
Do you really want to know what she does for/to the guy she dumped you for? Might as well save both of you the trouble and pay some professional to punch you in the kidneys for you.
"(Any helpful links to a good C++ API (not GUI toolkits) which is both POSIX and Windows might make me use that some more.)"
Isn't the WinNT codebase supposed to be able to run POSIX apps?
Yes, but this is useless crap for Linux, which therefore makes it good here on /.
Yeah, because I want my computer terminal to work like a freakin' Wurlitzer! When I'm ready to code, I want to throw a lever and have this huge contraption the size of a VW rise out of the floor, complete with Phantom of the Opera music playing in the background! And I'll be dressed like Tuxedo Kamen to do it!
Bah. Real men use ed!
All you have to do is go up to your Prefbar settings and turn off colors and... or are you using IE?
And if this conducts heat as well as ordinary aluminum, you can be sure that it will turn green. That, or you'll have a heart attack when you get the next electric bill...
"If the US Government can't even decide to clear their own Senators for air travel,"
Have you seen the US Senate lately? It seems the only think keeping half of them out of prison are constitutional priveleges against arrest!
"Oh thats good. The guy commits a traffic violation,"
No, he commits two felony offences (one of them being homicide) that his social status allowed him to wait out the statute of limitations on.
Perhaps DWI wasn't a felony back then (we've learned better since then), but manslaughter has probably been considered a felony in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts since at least the American Revolution.
"Clearly, given his history of reckless driving and leaving the scene of an accident, he is likely to be a threat to the flight and should be barred from flying."
Would you want to sit next to someone on an airplane who has a history of "recklessly endangering" those around him?
"Here's another one. If you're convicted of slander your rights to free speech should be taken away."
Slander is a matter for civil litigation. Manslaughter is a felony. There are many things we as a society do not allow convicted felons to do.
"Really, why must people be forced to abide by this "rule" that civil disobedience means you have to accept the punishment for some bogus crime?"
Every person who understads the meaning of the adjective "civil."
"Would it have been more noble or correct if George Washington et al. had meekly submitted themselves to be executed for treason?"
Spoken like someone who has no idea the ways Washington and his colleages bent over backwards to try to find a peaceful solution. Even after the first outbreak of violence and armed resistance in April of 1775, it was still well over a year of failed efforts to find a peaceful resolution before the governments of the colonies accepted that seeking independence through open rebellion was the only option.
"Should all those slaves who escaped from their plantations have willingly surrendered themselves and gone back to face the lash to fit these immutable laws of protest that you are subscribing to?"
No, you fight the extradition in court, like Dredd Scott. You do not follow the course of John Brown, not if you want people to agree with you and support you.
You will note that both the Battle at Lexington Green and the Dredd Scott court decision were, on the surface, "defeats" for those who we now consider to be in the right. However, those tactical defeats were also stratiegic victories, doing far more to win "hearts and minds" over to the side of the people trying to fight "The Man."
Note in the article description there's mention of the (in)famous RIAA litigations against a grandmother and a young girl. Nobody who hears about those will forget about them any time soon, but nobody cares about the people who do everything they can to buck "The System" in loud and obnoxious ways.
"Being allowed to the pants off of people for garden variety mp3 sharing is a perversion of justice, everybody knows it,"
That's why you ask for a jury trial.
"Years ago my father pointed out one of the reasons he prefers Nordstrom: they have plenty of seating. Husbands often wait a long time while their wives find clothing. I challenge you to find any major national retailer other than Nordstrom that provides plentiful and seating for their customers."
Other major retailers have tool and/or electronics departments that the stores hope those husbands would browse instead of sitting.
They're managers. It's their job to know a thing or two about what their employees are doing. If they are unable or unwilling to do the job they're paid for, why should I do it for free?