But the idea that offensive speech OF ANY STRIPE is somehow "not protected" by Free Speech is INSANE.
This is well worn territory:
Yelling fire in a theatre
Falsely reporting a crime
Breaching an NDA
Phone-sexing children
Free speech sounds noble on the surface, but there are some limits which make society a better place, which ultimately is the end goal.
Because it is the most repellent speech that MUST be protected, or 'freedom of speech' means nothing.
Free speech already means nothing. It's only people that don't understand the context of free speech that think it means something other than what is it.
Adults understand that words only "hurt" people that allow them to.
What about children? Or are you implying the free speech should have some limits?
Because all the SJW's are too dumb to realize the "hate speech" laws they want passed can be turned right around against themselves.
How?
We have hate speech laws in my country and we have a higher standard of living, lower crime rates, lower murder rates, lower corruption, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality etc than the US. I'm interested in how you think think this is a bad thing?
I just want people to recognize safety is not something worth giving up liberty for.
Such as say wearing a seatbelt in a car? Or what about my freedom to dump lead in the nearest river?
This is where extremist views fall over. If you're extreme left or right or libertarian or authoritarian, at some point your model fails. It's why politics is complicated, because the most successful path (judged by improvement to quality of life of society overall) is usually by a balance of all ideologies. In fact if you look at the countries in the world with the highest quality of life, lowest corruption etc, they are generally a mix of all four points of the political compass.
So in response to your catch phrase, sometimes giving up some freedom for safety actually produces a net gain overall (such as seatbelt laws)
"Free Speech" isn't just a governmental/legal concept. It is also a concept that applies to society's handling of ideas, and the flow of ideas on a societal level as well.
Conceptually yes, but there's no fundamental right for you say whatever you like on my property. The legal right only applies to govt. The rest is a perception thing that has no legal basis, merely a moral direction we're all leaning towards.
When the political discussion has moved to a private site, you need to allow free speech ALWAYS.
So for example if you have a dinner party and someone mentions politics you have to open your doors and let anyone in off the street to participate in the discussion. And they can say whatever they like in your house and your not allowed to interrupt or stop them from talking. Sounds legit...
You could tell me you hate me, and that as part of that hate you want me to know that you think I should die in a fire. Pretty hateful, but it's not a crime.
Actually it is a federal crime to make threats of harm or violence. So there's your free speech argument gone right there
The First Amendment specifically protects you against government taking away that right, sure, because that's the scope of the Amendments: protecting you from the government.
Yep...
But free speech remains a fundamental human right in any context.
Nope
Free speech was enshrined
Where?
because the concept came from a time when you had to stand up for what you say, you couldn't just spew hate speech anonymously without consequence.
Ok you're just making stuff up now.
This is what kids learn instead of history? I blame the schools.
Ironic...
But I come to the same conclusion: free speech is a fundamental human right, while taking offense at speech is your problem.
Good for you. But I think you're confusing your opinion with some imaginary law of the universe that doesn't exist.
As you already pointed out, free speech comes from 1A and only applies to that specific circumstance. Anything else is up for debate.
but that bakery had a well established reputation by then.
Ah well that makes it ok then. As long as you have a well established reputation for not serving black people then they can all just go somewhere else...
... protected from government censoring in the US.
Added some context.
This, a million times this! "Free speech!" seems to be thrown around almost every day these days without people understanding that it is only in context of govt censorship. A private business doesn't have to listen to your opinion no matter how important you think it is.
They told us time and again that the cameras they put everywhere were too high up to be used for facial recognition.
Who said that and when? They just had a show on one of the magazine shows on TV about the latest gen cameras installed at our city football stadium. They are mounted on the flood-light poles and have enough resolution to do facial recognition of every person on the opposite grandstand (ie 20000+ people). They showed the demo on TV and said they're already using it to remove known hooligans who already have bans from previous offences.
The surveillance state is already here.
it is the deals for movies yet to be made that is the real purpose, it provides industry leaders the opportunity to compete for scripts and actors face-to-face.
Yeah we know how trade shows work, they we're very popular before the Internet...
(2) a streaming platform manages to release something that causes a public outcry for not being considered,
How about (2a) Most people don't really care for award shows anyway, so streaming services continue to make tonnes of cash without them, making award shows become even more irrelevant than they already are.
Hundreds of movies are sold globally in Cannes, at the same time many producers find funding for their big budget and indie films. Netflix buys movies for a few dollars and produce a mere handful of movies every year.
Cannes showed about 70 films at the last festival, Netflix is scheduled to make 80 films this year, on top of just as many TV shows. Netflix's production budget is $5B/year.
If things like this preclude Netflix from attending places like Cannes, it only makes sense for Netflix (and every other non-traditional studio) to get together and build their own awards festival.
It would appear that this is the only logical course. I don't understand Cannes position here, isn't their thing to give awards to good films, not give awards to good films that are distributed only in one specific way?
It seems they care more about protecting distribution methods than actual quality of films being made. It will be their loss if they continue down this road.
Also, if the plates have an LCD screen, there should be an option to press a button in the car to send messages to tailgaters...
I've considered many, many times installing a marquee LED display in my rear window solely for this purpose.
Wouldn't it be easier just to not hold everyone up?
I never have this problem because I either drive fast, or when driving slow I let fast people behind me go around. The road is a shared resource.
Maybe the best thing to happen to the world would be a massive trade war and recession that will set the progress of privacy robbing tech back 50 years and cause superpowers to go bankrupt.
I think we on that road now. The inequality between rich and poor, privileged and the rest of us is at record levels. Every other time in history this resulted in revolution or war. Strap your seat belts on...
Tim Cook is a supply chain expert and business manager. AFAIK he has no claim to expertise in terms of politics or political issues.
It's one more person who knows something about X, trying to claim it gives them expertise in Y.
Business is mostly politics so it's more like someone knows something about X talking about it. And in this case it's one of the world leaders of digital privacy talking about digital privacy.
We don't have to accept what he says, but his ideas are probably worth hearing more than the average person on the street.
It seems to me that the congressman had a particular narrative he wanted to fit.
"Shadow profiles" sounds scary and mysterious. In a previous big-data job, I used the term "unassociated data" to describe when we had a connected set of records that didn't match any known individual.
So shouldn't Zucks said something similar? By denying then sort of describing something exactly is what makes this scary and mysterious. It's deliberate obfuscation that is the problem...
Goodness, you're right. Let's also ease up on organised crime for the same reasons, eh?
Best post of the thread. I often say this to myself every time some talking head on TV goes on about protecting jobs (usually at the expense of people's health). As an example coal power is responsible for millions of deaths, but somehow jobs for coal miners are more important than that. How is that different from say drug dealers? Drug dealing is a job that props up entire communities. Job security seems to get too much weight in political debates and no-one ever pulls them up on the flawed logic.
For all of its faults, facebook has merit in being an all-in-one solution for keeping in touch with people you know and following people and groups that serve particular interests.
Which is wonder why someone else didn't copy it. The value is connecting acquaintances and sharing a newsfeed, how hard can that be? And since half the world is already looking for an alternative any prospective competitor would have hundreds of millions of customers from day one.
So.... serious question. Deactivate facebook and go where, exactly?
I deleted my account a couple of years ago and didn't miss it. I'm old enough that most of the shit on there is irrelevant to me anyway,and for contacts, email still works (along with Skype/Viber or other Chat service)
As above I'm sure if Apple or someone big released a privacy focused clone of FB, it would kill FB almost overnight.
.. the way it is today, this is it. This is what a theocracy looks like in its infancy.
What are you talking about infancy? From the outside, the USA has always been a theocracy. In god we trust? One nation under god? How does a grown adult say that shit with a straight face?
Slashdot Mirror
But the idea that offensive speech OF ANY STRIPE is somehow "not protected" by Free Speech is INSANE.
This is well worn territory:
Yelling fire in a theatre
Falsely reporting a crime
Breaching an NDA
Phone-sexing children
Free speech sounds noble on the surface, but there are some limits which make society a better place, which ultimately is the end goal.
Because it is the most repellent speech that MUST be protected, or 'freedom of speech' means nothing.
Free speech already means nothing. It's only people that don't understand the context of free speech that think it means something other than what is it.
Adults understand that words only "hurt" people that allow them to.
What about children? Or are you implying the free speech should have some limits?
Because all the SJW's are too dumb to realize the "hate speech" laws they want passed can be turned right around against themselves.
How?
We have hate speech laws in my country and we have a higher standard of living, lower crime rates, lower murder rates, lower corruption, higher life expectancy, lower infant mortality etc than the US. I'm interested in how you think think this is a bad thing?
I just want people to recognize safety is not something worth giving up liberty for.
Such as say wearing a seatbelt in a car? Or what about my freedom to dump lead in the nearest river?
This is where extremist views fall over. If you're extreme left or right or libertarian or authoritarian, at some point your model fails. It's why politics is complicated, because the most successful path (judged by improvement to quality of life of society overall) is usually by a balance of all ideologies. In fact if you look at the countries in the world with the highest quality of life, lowest corruption etc, they are generally a mix of all four points of the political compass.
So in response to your catch phrase, sometimes giving up some freedom for safety actually produces a net gain overall (such as seatbelt laws)
"Free Speech" isn't just a governmental/legal concept. It is also a concept that applies to society's handling of ideas, and the flow of ideas on a societal level as well.
Conceptually yes, but there's no fundamental right for you say whatever you like on my property. The legal right only applies to govt. The rest is a perception thing that has no legal basis, merely a moral direction we're all leaning towards.
When the political discussion has moved to a private site, you need to allow free speech ALWAYS.
So for example if you have a dinner party and someone mentions politics you have to open your doors and let anyone in off the street to participate in the discussion. And they can say whatever they like in your house and your not allowed to interrupt or stop them from talking. Sounds legit...
You could tell me you hate me, and that as part of that hate you want me to know that you think I should die in a fire. Pretty hateful, but it's not a crime.
Actually it is a federal crime to make threats of harm or violence. So there's your free speech argument gone right there
Free speech is a fundamental human right.
No it isn't. Show me where that is written?
The First Amendment specifically protects you against government taking away that right, sure, because that's the scope of the Amendments: protecting you from the government.
Yep...
But free speech remains a fundamental human right in any context.
Nope
Free speech was enshrined
Where?
because the concept came from a time when you had to stand up for what you say, you couldn't just spew hate speech anonymously without consequence.
Ok you're just making stuff up now.
This is what kids learn instead of history? I blame the schools.
Ironic...
But I come to the same conclusion: free speech is a fundamental human right, while taking offense at speech is your problem.
Good for you. But I think you're confusing your opinion with some imaginary law of the universe that doesn't exist. As you already pointed out, free speech comes from 1A and only applies to that specific circumstance. Anything else is up for debate.
but that bakery had a well established reputation by then.
Ah well that makes it ok then. As long as you have a well established reputation for not serving black people then they can all just go somewhere else...
I don't know why I even bother using slashdot anymore. There is no nuance to the discourse.
The rest of us appreciate your input. As soon as you recognise someone incapable of intelligent discussion you have to just ignore them.
... protected from government censoring in the US.
Added some context.
This, a million times this! "Free speech!" seems to be thrown around almost every day these days without people understanding that it is only in context of govt censorship. A private business doesn't have to listen to your opinion no matter how important you think it is.
They told us time and again that the cameras they put everywhere were too high up to be used for facial recognition.
Who said that and when? They just had a show on one of the magazine shows on TV about the latest gen cameras installed at our city football stadium. They are mounted on the flood-light poles and have enough resolution to do facial recognition of every person on the opposite grandstand (ie 20000+ people). They showed the demo on TV and said they're already using it to remove known hooligans who already have bans from previous offences. The surveillance state is already here.
it is the deals for movies yet to be made that is the real purpose, it provides industry leaders the opportunity to compete for scripts and actors face-to-face.
Yeah we know how trade shows work, they we're very popular before the Internet...
(2) a streaming platform manages to release something that causes a public outcry for not being considered,
How about (2a) Most people don't really care for award shows anyway, so streaming services continue to make tonnes of cash without them, making award shows become even more irrelevant than they already are.
Hundreds of movies are sold globally in Cannes, at the same time many producers find funding for their big budget and indie films. Netflix buys movies for a few dollars and produce a mere handful of movies every year.
Cannes showed about 70 films at the last festival, Netflix is scheduled to make 80 films this year, on top of just as many TV shows. Netflix's production budget is $5B/year.
If things like this preclude Netflix from attending places like Cannes, it only makes sense for Netflix (and every other non-traditional studio) to get together and build their own awards festival.
It would appear that this is the only logical course. I don't understand Cannes position here, isn't their thing to give awards to good films, not give awards to good films that are distributed only in one specific way? It seems they care more about protecting distribution methods than actual quality of films being made. It will be their loss if they continue down this road.
Also, if the plates have an LCD screen, there should be an option to press a button in the car to send messages to tailgaters...
I've considered many, many times installing a marquee LED display in my rear window solely for this purpose.
Wouldn't it be easier just to not hold everyone up? I never have this problem because I either drive fast, or when driving slow I let fast people behind me go around. The road is a shared resource.
Maybe the best thing to happen to the world would be a massive trade war and recession that will set the progress of privacy robbing tech back 50 years and cause superpowers to go bankrupt.
I think we on that road now. The inequality between rich and poor, privileged and the rest of us is at record levels. Every other time in history this resulted in revolution or war. Strap your seat belts on...
Tim Cook is a supply chain expert and business manager. AFAIK he has no claim to expertise in terms of politics or political issues.
It's one more person who knows something about X, trying to claim it gives them expertise in Y.
Business is mostly politics so it's more like someone knows something about X talking about it. And in this case it's one of the world leaders of digital privacy talking about digital privacy. We don't have to accept what he says, but his ideas are probably worth hearing more than the average person on the street.
Have you been living under a rock the past decade? And did your rock have no internet service?
Nothing you say here adds anything to the discussion so can only assume you have no point...
It seems to me that the congressman had a particular narrative he wanted to fit.
"Shadow profiles" sounds scary and mysterious. In a previous big-data job, I used the term "unassociated data" to describe when we had a connected set of records that didn't match any known individual.
So shouldn't Zucks said something similar? By denying then sort of describing something exactly is what makes this scary and mysterious. It's deliberate obfuscation that is the problem...
Goodness, you're right. Let's also ease up on organised crime for the same reasons, eh?
Best post of the thread. I often say this to myself every time some talking head on TV goes on about protecting jobs (usually at the expense of people's health). As an example coal power is responsible for millions of deaths, but somehow jobs for coal miners are more important than that. How is that different from say drug dealers? Drug dealing is a job that props up entire communities. Job security seems to get too much weight in political debates and no-one ever pulls them up on the flawed logic.
For all of its faults, facebook has merit in being an all-in-one solution for keeping in touch with people you know and following people and groups that serve particular interests.
Which is wonder why someone else didn't copy it. The value is connecting acquaintances and sharing a newsfeed, how hard can that be? And since half the world is already looking for an alternative any prospective competitor would have hundreds of millions of customers from day one.
So.... serious question. Deactivate facebook and go where, exactly?
I deleted my account a couple of years ago and didn't miss it. I'm old enough that most of the shit on there is irrelevant to me anyway,and for contacts, email still works (along with Skype/Viber or other Chat service) As above I'm sure if Apple or someone big released a privacy focused clone of FB, it would kill FB almost overnight.
.. the way it is today, this is it. This is what a theocracy looks like in its infancy.
What are you talking about infancy? From the outside, the USA has always been a theocracy. In god we trust? One nation under god? How does a grown adult say that shit with a straight face?
Everyone should be shocked by what the Trump administration and Congress is doing here.
We are shocked but what can we do. You can't argue with stupid people, and in a democracy they have a seat at the table.