The hecklers's veto is when government claims the power to silence you because other people might get violent over your speech. (This is separate from "them's fighting words", as they are not statements directed to provoke a particular person.)
In the US these inevitably get tossed as unconstitutional. As should something like this. We, The People, choose to take the risk of gathering. Your permitted job, government, is to secure that right.
That is the only power we have granted you.
Other countries without serious constitutions, that follow vox populi vox dei, YMMV.
Fujashima was due to the one two punch of an earthquake followed by a tsunami. The earthquake knocked out the plant's energy generation itself, and the backup power lines to other plants, then the tsunami flooded the basement with the backup generators. Then no power to control the cooling pumps.
No one is saying a private venue cannot ban certain speech. Rather it is perfectly fine to point out it is not necessarily a good idea to do so in a case like this.
Properly speaking, democracy is a subset of freedom, not the other way around.
A vox populi vox dei concept, where everything under the sun is doable as long as you can stir up a transient 51% majority, is nothing to be proud of, and is the source of the collapse of past democracy.
You seek to give the nasty shitheads of history the power to censor. And by nasty shitheads, I mean the elected leaders who command men with guns to do the silencing.
Why would anyone have confidence such a system will hold up in the long run?
Better to strip government of all that power, and suffer the occasional downside as the price.
Correct. It is fraud to complain there is something wrong with it, and hence for government to mandate fraud.
Other, illogical concerns are not the government's perogative to force on people.
Religious issues aside, should government mandate kosher or not kosher labeling because some folks are concerned with that? Halal? No elves killed while making these cookies?
People concerned with GMO can search out products free of it.
"If we tell them what is and what is not GM, some people will refuse to buy the GM, even if they are not sure the non-GM is better."
Well, some others will choose to buy the GM, even if they are not sure the GM is better. Stupidity works both ways, you know?
I was under the impression that all this fuss about "free market" required "perfectly informed parties", right?
"It might even end up killing the GM industry"
And favoring the GM industry might even end up killing the Organic Foods industry. Didn't know it was some kind of government mandate to favor a side of an industry against any other.
The issue is government mandates. Government should have real science behind reasons for labelling (or banning.)
For that matter, a company voluntarily labeling "GMO-free" may be satisfying illogical consumer demand, but that is a scam.
Oh my eff8ng god. Stop wi5h the humanoid stuff please.
Make the multi-swish-armed squiddies from Matrix, which will be much more useful and capable of movement than these stupid, oaflike, ponderous mechanical apes (of apes).
It is government's job to prove the law is useful, not just assert it while mandating ticket quotas.
"But they aren't quotas! They're Minimum Recommended Cash Flow Activation Vector Data Points To Continue Supporting Government In The Manner To Which It Has Become Accustomed!"
That's the only problem I have with it, as long as police/judges treat the earlier reports with enough suspicion I don't have a problem with it.
There's no police here: this is about confidential, university investigations. One hopes that those investigators would actually contact those prior accusers as part of the investigation, but there are no formal rules of evidence for such panels, as there are for criminal investigations.
Of course, the penalties they can impose are also much less severe. There's no jail time. There's no public disclosure. The worst that can happen is expulsion, and the university will not report the reason for expulsion - beyond academic or conduct. Nor will the university disclose any records at all without the student's (ie, the sanctioned) approval.
The things you mention are life-wrecking government punishments. These things should go through real courts and not just "you KNOW he did it!" kangaroo courts.
The birthing of these lesser punishment half-assed government faux trial system needs to be crushed. Do it the real, constitutionally approved way.
But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.
Both are instances of whether a private organization can decide whether or not to interact with a recipient of services in ways said organization does not desire to.
Either both should have this discretion or neither should have it. As believe it's generally wrong to force people to do things they don't wish to do (whether I support their reasons or find them reprehensible), I believe both Facebook and the wedding cake makers should have a choice. Both should also accept any public backlash resulting from the way they exercise this choice.
I agree with this. I am just stating the current law as I understand it. The expansive "interstate commerce" abomination, fortunately cannot touch the First Amendment. A law is a law is a law regardless.
In the cake case, I submit putting two grooms on it would rise to expression in any other context.
Speech includes the right not to say something, and that's literally pretty much the end of it. If their TOS had some kind of guarantee that, as long as you don't violate some set of subjects, they might have a case.
But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the "heckler's veto" writ large.
The hecklers's veto is when government claims the power to silence you because other people might get violent over your speech. (This is separate from "them's fighting words", as they are not statements directed to provoke a particular person.)
In the US these inevitably get tossed as unconstitutional. As should something like this. We, The People, choose to take the risk of gathering. Your permitted job, government, is to secure that right.
That is the only power we have granted you.
Other countries without serious constitutions, that follow vox populi vox dei, YMMV.
Fujashima was due to the one two punch of an earthquake followed by a tsunami. The earthquake knocked out the plant's energy generation itself, and the backup power lines to other plants, then the tsunami flooded the basement with the backup generators. Then no power to control the cooling pumps.
Tip top equipment wouldn't have helped.
They forgot average Slashdotter's rate of returned date invitations:
108%*
* Percent exceeds 100 due to frequent double responses of "No. God no."
> ThinkVantage
Makes me think the marketing people are robot phoning it in.
Seriously, finally. Hopefully they can come up with a bread and a chip substitute. It is astounding how many calories are driven by bread and chips.
A cheeseburger with this will lose about 2/5ths its calories.
No one is saying a private venue cannot ban certain speech. Rather it is perfectly fine to point out it is not necessarily a good idea to do so in a case like this.
Properly speaking, democracy is a subset of freedom, not the other way around.
A vox populi vox dei concept, where everything under the sun is doable as long as you can stir up a transient 51% majority, is nothing to be proud of, and is the source of the collapse of past democracy.
You seek to give the nasty shitheads of history the power to censor. And by nasty shitheads, I mean the elected leaders who command men with guns to do the silencing.
Why would anyone have confidence such a system will hold up in the long run?
Better to strip government of all that power, and suffer the occasional downside as the price.
Answer his question.
Correct. It is fraud to complain there is something wrong with it, and hence for government to mandate fraud.
Other, illogical concerns are not the government's perogative to force on people.
Religious issues aside, should government mandate kosher or not kosher labeling because some folks are concerned with that? Halal? No elves killed while making these cookies?
People concerned with GMO can search out products free of it.
"If we tell them what is and what is not GM, some people will refuse to buy the GM, even if they are not sure the non-GM is better."
Well, some others will choose to buy the GM, even if they are not sure the GM is better. Stupidity works both ways, you know?
I was under the impression that all this fuss about "free market" required "perfectly informed parties", right?
"It might even end up killing the GM industry"
And favoring the GM industry might even end up killing the Organic Foods industry. Didn't know it was some kind of government mandate to favor a side of an industry against any other.
The issue is government mandates. Government should have real science behind reasons for labelling (or banning.)
For that matter, a company voluntarily labeling "GMO-free" may be satisfying illogical consumer demand, but that is a scam.
people who are wildly batshit insane keep yakking about the mythical "red mercury"
Or they watched Star Trek's "Red Matter" plot....
I immediately thought the opposite, that whoever wrote red matter into the plot was aping the legend of red mercury.
Hmmmm, I wonder what protomatter, which every ethical scientist has denounced as dangerously unpredictable, was aping.
You nerds should similarly give up on your high tech fleshlights and make one final effort to pussy crush.
Oh my eff8ng god. Stop wi5h the humanoid stuff please.
Make the multi-swish-armed squiddies from Matrix, which will be much more useful and capable of movement than these stupid, oaflike, ponderous mechanical apes (of apes).
It is government's job to prove the law is useful, not just assert it while mandating ticket quotas.
"But they aren't quotas! They're Minimum Recommended Cash Flow Activation Vector Data Points To Continue Supporting Government In The Manner To Which It Has Become Accustomed!"
I would like to suggest that our right to face our accuser is being usurped . Some things just shouldn't be automated, even if we are able to.
It exposes the highway robber nature of government, as opposed to the caring safety monitor meme it is wrapped in.
I need dimmable windows for some...surfing privacy while I'm driven to work.
That's the only problem I have with it, as long as police/judges treat the earlier reports with enough suspicion I don't have a problem with it.
There's no police here: this is about confidential, university investigations. One hopes that those investigators would actually contact those prior accusers as part of the investigation, but there are no formal rules of evidence for such panels, as there are for criminal investigations.
Of course, the penalties they can impose are also much less severe. There's no jail time. There's no public disclosure. The worst that can happen is expulsion, and the university will not report the reason for expulsion - beyond academic or conduct. Nor will the university disclose any records at all without the student's (ie, the sanctioned) approval.
The things you mention are life-wrecking government punishments. These things should go through real courts and not just "you KNOW he did it!" kangaroo courts.
The birthing of these lesser punishment half-assed government faux trial system needs to be crushed. Do it the real, constitutionally approved way.
> "including statewide political parties, news media organizations and Georgia GunOwner Magazine".
To be honest, Georgia GunOwner Magazine thought it was just their subscriber list.
> Texas trying to out stupid Florida and winning !!!
You mean Texas trying to out stupid Florid and winning !!!
You screwed that joke up, pal. You had your chance. Next!
He pointed out taking the dollars with the child to pay for an alternative school, something many places do ready.
This is fought tooth and nail by big teacher union big government types to like to spout memes like hey you selfish jerk with privilege...! >:-(
Not to defend it, but then they would have used the word slave twice in close proximity, a writing no no.
Oh, wait. They used the word worker twice anyway.
But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.
Both are instances of whether a private organization can decide whether or not to interact with a recipient of services in ways said organization does not desire to.
Either both should have this discretion or neither should have it. As believe it's generally wrong to force people to do things they don't wish to do (whether I support their reasons or find them reprehensible), I believe both Facebook and the wedding cake makers should have a choice. Both should also accept any public backlash resulting from the way they exercise this choice.
I agree with this. I am just stating the current law as I understand it. The expansive "interstate commerce" abomination, fortunately cannot touch the First Amendment. A law is a law is a law regardless.
In the cake case, I submit putting two grooms on it would rise to expression in any other context.
Who gives a shit what a group of loonies think?
Loonies? No.
Angry masses of men with guns and bombs and controlled land and designs on a true state and government?
Hell yes.
Speech includes the right not to say something, and that's literally pretty much the end of it. If their TOS had some kind of guarantee that, as long as you don't violate some set of subjects, they might have a case.
But as "printer", they don't have to say jack squat. The "wedding cake" lawsuits are shaping up this way -- a cake in general with two grooms, must do. With particular phrases, nope.
Ahem. Is everybody listening? Good. Watch this -- the hand is quicker than the eye.
I knew stormtroopers were actually terrible shots!