How is this even a matter of Hate speech at all? Unless it accounts for ideas. Religion is an idea, and you are allowed to dislike it. I personally hate Islam, which btw doesn't mean I hate muslims.
Hate speech should be about hating someone because of what they are and cannot change, such as skin color.
What *possible* good reason could there be to punch a guy lying down in the face? Especially while constrained by two officers!
Some people will justify just about anything.
"Fundamentalist idiots" do have the ear of your president. Unless he's recently changed his stance on preaching abstinence at school. Most of your argument is a straw man's by the way.
"When people use bigotry as an excuse to commit force or fraud, it is the act itself which is the crime, and deserves punishment, not the motive behind it."
And that is your opinion, but not how the law works in most western european countries.
Electricity is metered. Water is metered. Hell, even my trash is metered. What makes you think bandwidth will be any different? People need to be prepared to pay, per MB or GB, if they want quality service.
For one, bandwidth is not a limited natural ressource.
I don't know about anyone else, but I mock it because it's so obviously unsustainable in the long run. "Free" health care that means waiting endless amounts of time for routine surgeries.
I guess you could argue the first point, but I don't see where you read about such long waiting times for the cynically double quoted "free health care". I'm curious, but how do the very poor in the USA get their heart transplant?
The US did not "Create" the Internet.
The Internet is the result of linking national networks together.
The US played a large part but definitely did not create the internet.
And who cares whether you're usually anti-US, how does it add substance?
I find it sad that your feelings towards the french are only "neutral". France is and has always been a US ally, and one of the closest (remember that 9/11 event? Guess which president was the first to go to New York?).
...their nationlistic zeal to keep France French.
As an example of why I feel people are unfaire towards France : When we ask that products we buy at the supermarket actually be labeled in *french* we are called xenophobic and anti-english. You do understand most of this country doesn't speak english that well? Imagine having to do your groceries with everything labeled in russian?
Well what you're saying is just anecdotal. You're just explaining the communication problem as rudeness. You do have a point on french service in many *parisian* restaurants. But if it can make you feel any better, the same rudeness is shown towards the locals.
Yes, you are of course correct. But any article with the word french in it leads to the ultimate troll unfortunately. Most people don't care for fact, they prefer canned explanations for what is happening.
And yet again, stereotypical idiocy gets modded up. You're not observing anything, you're making broad deductions on the french.
Piss off america? Do you think the french go about with their lives thinking of ways to piss off the US when they get their croissants in the morning? Speak of paranoia!
And apparently accusing him of only caring about money with *zero* proof should be taken as an accurate statement? (at least I don't see the proof in your post)
How do they manage to escape the scrutiny of the same freedom-minded people, who can not talk about Bush without foam forming on their mouthes?
You argument is flawed and simplistic (yet you get +4 insightful...) : disliking Bush has *nothing* to do with admiring China's leaders. I dislike both.
And childish/nonsensical terms such as "Evil" bring nothing to the table.
After all I consider Bush evil, but I guess you would disagree.
Slashdot Mirror
How is this even a matter of Hate speech at all? Unless it accounts for ideas. Religion is an idea, and you are allowed to dislike it. I personally hate Islam, which btw doesn't mean I hate muslims. Hate speech should be about hating someone because of what they are and cannot change, such as skin color.
Buy hey, if he's a genius no doubt he'll patent his algos and clean up and within a year we'll all have it on our desktops.
You meant *under* our desktops, right? ;)
You're one insulting little prick.
And thus the problem with popular juries. Imbeciles get to decide themselves what's legal and what is not.
What *possible* good reason could there be to punch a guy lying down in the face? Especially while constrained by two officers! Some people will justify just about anything.
This is not a job, more like offering them a free sandwich.
"Fundamentalist idiots" do have the ear of your president. Unless he's recently changed his stance on preaching abstinence at school.
Most of your argument is a straw man's by the way.
"When people use bigotry as an excuse to commit force or fraud, it is the act itself which is the crime, and deserves punishment, not the motive behind it."
And that is your opinion, but not how the law works in most western european countries.
Electricity is metered. Water is metered. Hell, even my trash is metered. What makes you think bandwidth will be any different? People need to be prepared to pay, per MB or GB, if they want quality service.
For one, bandwidth is not a limited natural ressource.
I don't know about anyone else, but I mock it because it's so obviously unsustainable in the long run. "Free" health care that means waiting endless amounts of time for routine surgeries.
I guess you could argue the first point, but I don't see where you read about such long waiting times for the cynically double quoted "free health care". I'm curious, but how do the very poor in the USA get their heart transplant?
"your ignorant leftist teachers" What the hell is that supposed to mean?
The US did not "Create" the Internet. The Internet is the result of linking national networks together. The US played a large part but definitely did not create the internet. And who cares whether you're usually anti-US, how does it add substance?
I don't believe the internet was "created" by the US. The internet is the result of the inter-linking of national networks around the world.
Unhealthy? What are your sources?
And "french food" doesn't mean much, it's a wide array of recipes.
They are comparable in that they both want their nation to be ruled by their very own "holy book".
Why would there be an expectation that it's easy to build because it's easy to use? That's just insane.
I find it sad that your feelings towards the french are only "neutral". France is and has always been a US ally, and one of the closest (remember that 9/11 event? Guess which president was the first to go to New York?).
...their nationlistic zeal to keep France French.
As an example of why I feel people are unfaire towards France : When we ask that products we buy at the supermarket actually be labeled in *french* we are called xenophobic and anti-english. You do understand most of this country doesn't speak english that well? Imagine having to do your groceries with everything labeled in russian?
Well what you're saying is just anecdotal.
You're just explaining the communication problem as rudeness.
You do have a point on french service in many *parisian* restaurants. But if it can make you feel any better, the same rudeness is shown towards the locals.
Yes, you are of course correct. But any article with the word french in it leads to the ultimate troll unfortunately.
Most people don't care for fact, they prefer canned explanations for what is happening.
And yet again, stereotypical idiocy gets modded up. You're not observing anything, you're making broad deductions on the french.
Piss off america? Do you think the french go about with their lives thinking of ways to piss off the US when they get their croissants in the morning? Speak of paranoia!
My favorite: pourriciel (crapware)
And living in despair without purpose or reason isn't?
I hope you're not seriously arguing that this is the case of non-religious people.
Well no one said (or implied) the contrary.
And apparently accusing him of only caring about money with *zero* proof should be taken as an accurate statement? (at least I don't see the proof in your post)
How do they manage to escape the scrutiny of the same freedom-minded people, who can not talk about Bush without foam forming on their mouthes?
You argument is flawed and simplistic (yet you get +4 insightful...) : disliking Bush has *nothing* to do with admiring China's leaders. I dislike both.
And childish/nonsensical terms such as "Evil" bring nothing to the table.
After all I consider Bush evil, but I guess you would disagree.