Given that the dead are unlikely to read any of his comments, he must have known that the comments would be read by the living - to whit, those who respected the deceased. It would be trivial therefore to argue that his comments were indeed directed at those individuals and thus be classified as harassment.
Actually the people who made the unsubstantiated claims that it was the friend are as much to blame, if not more so. They DIRECTLY caused her actions, whereas the guy merely INDIRECTLY caused them.
Yeah, yeah, yeah you can link to CPS info all you like, that merely supports the fact that it's currently a crime in England and Wales. What the original question was though, was "is it RIGHT to be a crime?"
Defacing a grave is vandalism, which is already a crime. Your analogy in car terms would be that it's ok to key someone's car. You can always have it repainted.
I get what you're trying to say, but the way you drew a parallel with defacing of graves is not in the same ballpark at all.
The function of copyright law is to maximise profit
No it's not.
The function of copyright is "to encourage a dynamic culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public."
Because they might be out of a job? We're talking about safety here, not employment. If you want to talk employment about an industry that will eventually be replaced by more up-to-date technology, then the coal miners will have to deal with it in the same way the buggy manufacturers were screwed by the car industry, the portrait painters were screwed by the advent of photography, and 8-track factories were shut down when... you get the idea. At least I hope you do.
You've made lots of assumptions there, especially ones based on the current framework of government and capitalist laws. You're thinking about share ownership in the same way that share ownership operates at the moment, which is not the way things would work in a truly communist regime. You talk of "an employee reaping the benefits of a capital investment" - such a thing would not be possible, nor be needed, in a communist system.
You responded to the parent and introduced the word "fascism" where none had been mentioned before. The parent was pointing out the lack of personal freedoms in the US (as was I) and you seemed to be applying sarcasm as a response. Regardless of the causes of this lack of freedoms, unless you can prove otherwise the parent's assertion stands.
Arrest records are public records as well. Do you suggest limiting access to publicly available government records?
But arrest records shouldn't be public records to start with. That's the whole problem.
I disagree. Make the arrest records public, and query every single one that did not make it to a criminal charge. That way it keeps the police in check.
Next we have to shout loudly at the media to differentiate between arrested and charged, and get the public to accept that there's a world of difference between the two.
A little chihuahua barking behind a gate can bark all he wants. No big deal. But I'd definitely be concerned about a rottweiler or pitbull that's loose and unleashed, it doesn't even have to bark - just baring its teeth would scare me...
But how where do you stand on the rights of dogs to bark? Yes you'd be scared of an unleashed rottweiler or pitbull, but is that enough to curtail free speech rights?
Yes it will. If the emails are copied and made available to the public, the police have "probable cause" to look at the originals within NI. From there it's a short step to the DPP, but if history shows us anything it will not go anywhere, though not because of the Anon/Lolz actions.
I can't see why this would make it harder to take legal action.
if you went for a walk out on the marshes, camouflage vehicles would appear from nowhere containing scary-looking people asking you awkward questions about what you were doing.
Slashdot Mirror
And so it should everywhere. What such law SAYS is another matter.
Given that the dead are unlikely to read any of his comments, he must have known that the comments would be read by the living - to whit, those who respected the deceased. It would be trivial therefore to argue that his comments were indeed directed at those individuals and thus be classified as harassment.
Actually the people who made the unsubstantiated claims that it was the friend are as much to blame, if not more so. They DIRECTLY caused her actions, whereas the guy merely INDIRECTLY caused them.
Yeah, yeah, yeah you can link to CPS info all you like, that merely supports the fact that it's currently a crime in England and Wales. What the original question was though, was "is it RIGHT to be a crime?"
Defacing a grave is vandalism, which is already a crime.
Your analogy in car terms would be that it's ok to key someone's car. You can always have it repainted.
I get what you're trying to say, but the way you drew a parallel with defacing of graves is not in the same ballpark at all.
Nonsense; it was never in the public domain to begin with.
You are 17, and your parents die leaving you a diamond in their will that you can claim when you are 18.
I steal the diamond.
You are now 19.
By your statement, you cannot lay claim to the diamond as it was never yours to begin with.
The function of copyright law is to maximise profit
No it's not.
The function of copyright is "to encourage a dynamic culture, while returning value to creators so that they can lead a dignified economic existence, and to provide widespread, affordable access to content for the public."
Then I really don't understand what your point is. Why would the coal miners think different from "less deaths in the mines is a good thing"?
Once you can drive a car to Alpha Centauri that will become a meaningful statistic.
Because they might be out of a job? We're talking about safety here, not employment. If you want to talk employment about an industry that will eventually be replaced by more up-to-date technology, then the coal miners will have to deal with it in the same way the buggy manufacturers were screwed by the car industry, the portrait painters were screwed by the advent of photography, and 8-track factories were shut down when ... you get the idea. At least I hope you do.
And at cost they will go out of business. You cannot run a corporation as a non-profit AND supply your goods at cost.
Also, loss-leaders will upset the equilibrium, and the public's tastes will change causing market drift.
A truly free market... stabilizes its price at the zero profit point.
No it doesn't, else what would be the benefit from entering the marketplace?
You've made lots of assumptions there, especially ones based on the current framework of government and capitalist laws. You're thinking about share ownership in the same way that share ownership operates at the moment, which is not the way things would work in a truly communist regime. You talk of "an employee reaping the benefits of a capital investment" - such a thing would not be possible, nor be needed, in a communist system.
No it's never been done the way he said it would be. Marx believed that it would evolve on its own out of capitalism.
He may yet be right on that. The future is a big place.
You responded to the parent and introduced the word "fascism" where none had been mentioned before. The parent was pointing out the lack of personal freedoms in the US (as was I) and you seemed to be applying sarcasm as a response. Regardless of the causes of this lack of freedoms, unless you can prove otherwise the parent's assertion stands.
Speed limits, prohibitions on public drunkenness, and religious freedom are clearly the three basic tenets of fascism.
How about freedom to marry (DOMA), suspension of rights (PATRIOT) and travel bans (Cuba)?
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
— Oscar Wilde
Why are "social media sites ... just plain wrong"? Please explain - wrong morally? Legally? How are they wrong?
Notwithstanding ...
Arrest records are public records as well. Do you suggest limiting access to publicly available government records?
But arrest records shouldn't be public records to start with. That's the whole problem.
I disagree. Make the arrest records public, and query every single one that did not make it to a criminal charge. That way it keeps the police in check.
Next we have to shout loudly at the media to differentiate between arrested and charged, and get the public to accept that there's a world of difference between the two.
A little chihuahua barking behind a gate can bark all he wants. No big deal. But I'd definitely be concerned about a rottweiler or pitbull that's loose and unleashed, it doesn't even have to bark - just baring its teeth would scare me...
But how where do you stand on the rights of dogs to bark? Yes you'd be scared of an unleashed rottweiler or pitbull, but is that enough to curtail free speech rights?
Surely the political clout from the public is greater than the political clout of the police
Yes it will. If the emails are copied and made available to the public, the police have "probable cause" to look at the originals within NI. From there it's a short step to the DPP, but if history shows us anything it will not go anywhere, though not because of the Anon/Lolz actions.
I can't see why this would make it harder to take legal action.
if you went for a walk out on the marshes, camouflage vehicles would appear from nowhere containing scary-looking people asking you awkward questions about what you were doing.
Well, that's Essex for you.
Google scissors cuts Chinese paper. Ha.
Pissing in the wind? This is motion TOWARDS ...