They won't show up, and you'll never see them, so you'll just think everything is fine (until you notice your content has been removed). Which part of "remove content" did you not understand?
Social networks are TWO-WAY. Its a VERY different thing, which is why different rules should apply.
You want to start applying rules to private companies telling them what they can and cannot publish? THAT'S totalitarian.
These companies already take advantage of rules that were provided to protect them, so if they are doing that, it's certainly within our purview to provide some restrictions on them in exchange for that. Providers of Internet services are protected under the DMCA and other laws from being held liable for user-provided content. Well, if they're going to start censoring that content, shouldn't they lose their protection from liability?
Mississippi has one of the larger percentages of union employees in the south. Not sure why you are so butthurt about unions? Do you have a problem with people getting together to try and get a better deal for themselves?
No, I have a problem with workers that are being exploited by an overbearing corporation and its overpaid bosses to also have to deal with being exploited by an overbearing and often corrupt union and its overpaid bosses. Mississippi has lots of union workers, and yet it's a right to work state. So why do the unions in Michigan and elsewhere think they need laws and the violent power of the state to force people to join a union against their will, and even take money out of the paychecks of people that get NO benefit from the union? Or extract union money from workers' paychecks for partisan lobbying activities?
Actually, yes, until such time as SCOTUS says otherwise.
As if there is anyone that could sue to eliminate the Dept. of Ed. and be considered to have standing...
In any case, as stated in the Federalist Papers #41 quoted above, the "general welfare" provides no specific powers at all beyond the enumerated ones, and, according to Madison, it's a ludicrous argument to claim that it does. The Department was actually justified based on the Commerce Clause (like so many of the laws instituting Federal overreach), so you're not even correct about the Constitutional justification that was used to establish it.
So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Here's my homework, teacher: Article 1, section 8: Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States.
But what would have been thought of that assembly, if, attaching themselves to these general expressions, and disregarding the specifications which ascertain and limit their import, they had exercised an unlimited power of providing for the common defense and general welfar
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Anything that directly affects an individuals ability to pursue happiness is very much a federal issue.
And also keep in mind that compared to the general population, more Noble winners play instruments. Interesting correlation between musicality and scientific creativity.
I think it has more to do with the fact that quality higher education typically provides much more well-rounded education, including music.
I guess we don't need the FLSA anymore, then. Might as well get rid of it, since the unions are taking care of all that for everybody! And all they want is the same access to your paycheck that the IRS gets. AirBus, Yokohoma, and GTSC should have built their plants in Michigan instead of Mississippi - they must have been crazy to build there, because unions are so great.
Now freedom from persecution from the government should be absolute, but freedom of speech definitely and repeatedly gets balanced against freedom from harm that others experience form it, be it excessive and sustained verbal abuse, or reputational assaults.
There are no "balancing" tests in the US with regards to speech, at all. In fact the SCOTUS completely rejected the idea of any kind of balancing-type exemptions in upholding US flag burning as protected speech.
That doesn't mean you're free from consequences for things you say (just ask the Dixie Chicks). But what you're talking about are torts, based on harassment, or libel/slander or the like. You can sue anyone for anything, if you can pay for a lawyer. Doesn't mean you'll win, but Hulk Hogan certainly did. But this article is about speech codes and outlawing speech based on content in the law, making you a criminal for things you say, and that's wrong and should be rejected and loudly denounced.
Well, right. Proving intent is required. And the statement "you f*cking b*tch! I hate everything you say and if we ever meet i will rape you and hang you on your own intestines" would probably not pass that test. It's clearly hyperbole. See for instance, USA v. Bagdasarian, which established tow tests: (1) would the statement be understood by people hearing or reading it in context as a serious expression of an intent to kill or injure? and (2) did the defendant intend that the statement be understood as a threat?
The statement in questions seems to be a stream of rage, with outlandish language "hang you up on your own intestines" which, I think, would not be physically impossible, or at least unlikely without some serious and lengthy manipulation of the intestines to create something rope-line strong enough to hold a body.
What's your authority to say that the threat has to be "credible"? I can't find it either in Supreme Court precedent or in the post by Ken White that you linked to.
Yea, I'm probably using the wrong term, or wrong context. The prevailing idea is that the threat has to be somehow believable, is the way I read it.
Typically harassment and stalking statutes use that kind of term, to distinguish between other types of emotional outbursts of hyperbole rather than actual threats in a domestic dispute. a.k.a. the California statute defining stalking: "(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, is guilty of the crime of stalking....".
In the US, something like that would probably be considered a "true threat", and that's one of the well-known and uncontroversial exceptions to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.
Sorry, but no. It has to be a "credible threat", naming a specific action, a subjective and objective intent, as well as some indication that the person actually has the means and opportunity to carry it out. The "if we ever meet" part of the statement is a clear indication that the threat is not actually a credible one. There's a good discussion of the issues over at the PopeHat.
"freedom of speech" is not the only freedom in the world. It has to be balanced against all other freedoms.
Nope. No, it doesn't. It needs to be absolute, or it's useless. There are no freedoms that speech impinges upon. At all, ever, in any way.
but even in the US "freedom of speech" ist not universal above everything else. Just try crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and then claiming freedom of speech.
You're simply wrong. It is universal. It doesn't need to be "above" anything, because it's not possible to impinge on other rights with it. It is perfectly legal and acceptable to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. It's free speech. You, like everyone else, misquote the SCOTUS opinion that stated it, in an dissent from the majority opinion. The full quote is "Falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre and causing a riot." The operative parts are NOT that someone said there was a fire - it was that they (1) Lied about there being a fire, and (2) caused a riot. We have laws against fraud and inciting a riot for reasons, and those things can cause harm to others. Even the "falsely" part is not enough to take someone's free right to speech away, because they may be performing satire, protesting the lack of adequate fire exits available in a theatre, or simply making a joke for the crowd. All protected speech. Even if it caused a panic the intent must be proven.
In these cases the problem is *really* hate. Hate in "you f*cking b*tch! I hate everything you say and if we ever meet i will rape you and hang you on your own intestines" (withouth the * of course). Should posts like these *really* be protected with nothing the person attacked can do? EU law says otherwise, but twitter&co rather do nothing - some say because a good hate-filled "discussion" gives more page views and therefore more ad revenue.
You can always come up with extreme, indefensible statements bordering on credible threats to point to and say "this should be banned" and lots of people will agree with you. But where is the line? It's very subjective, and the line can be moved this way and that on a subjective basis without anyone really noticing. Until it affects them. And that's why the right to free speech must be absolute. Because as that line gets moved, and the censors' conscious and unconscious biases creep into the censorship decisions, soon there are simply ideas and voices and opinions that are important and relevant that will never get heard. That way leads inevitably to tyranny.
Since when has anyone who is not an Obama critic been concerned with a Constitutional crisis?
For crying out loud, our current President negotiated a treaty with a hostile foreign power with no consent from the Senate! He just created it out of thin air, and worse, the Senate just rolled over and let him do it!
If a President negotiates a treaty with a foreign power, that is not a Constitutional crisis. Quite the contrary: under the constitution, that's his job. And it's the job of the Senate to ratify such a treaty with a supermajority. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Senate is not in the picture.
Well the Senate was certainly not in the picture when they secretly landed a plane with pallets full of cash to hand over to the Iranian president...
Difference in Cook County and Los Angeles: 1,903,356
While you may not like the way the states elect the president via the Electoral College, it's superior to having 2-3 cities decide for the whole country.
Not that I think there's any evidence, either, but there are only 2 counties in the entire country that gave Hillary the larger popular vote. One is Cook County, where Chicago is, and Chicago is well-known for voter fraud (just check out the evidence from the JFK election). The other is Los Angeles County, CA, a large area with a lot of undocumented immigrants.
Well, if you look at the vote totals, eliminating Cook County (Chicago) and Los Angeles would put Trump way over the top in terms of popular vote. Lots of immigrants in both areas, and lots of illegals in LA.
14 elements make fascism - and Trump meets every one of them.
Okay, I'll bite.
The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition. Not sure how Trump fits this one, but an argument could be made, I guess. Certainly doesn't seem like a cult of tradition, at all. His entire campaign was untraditional. You'd have to explain this one to me. Trump was all about breaking with tradition, both in the way he ran his businesses and his campaign. Nope.
rejection of modernism. The author describes this as "a rejection of the Spirit of 1789 (and 1176)". I don't think that fits at all. You could probably define it as a rejection of progressivism and globalism, in which case, yes, that definitely fits Trump. Check.
Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. "The official Fascist intellectuals were mainly engaged in attacking modern culture and the liberal intelligentsia for having betrayed traditional values." Taking this definition a bit further, you can make it fit Trump as a rejection of political correctness, Keynesians like Paul Krugman, and pundits like Bill Maher. Check.
No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge. For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason. I don't even know how to evaluate this one. Trump disagrees with AGW, but he doesn't get praised for it. He seems to have changed his mind on a lot of issues lately when confronted by experts, including torture, the Wall (it's not fencing), and Obamacare. Nope.
Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition. Ah, I see where you're going with this one. Trump is considered a racist because he complained about a judge that was a member of La Raza, he wants to stop illegal immigrants, and "extreme vet" Muslims (never mind that Mexican and Muslim are not races). The author does a poor job of conflating "intruders" with "other races", here. Seems more like xenophobia. This really requires more discussion, but since everybody is claiming voting for Trump means you're a racist, we'll go with that viewpoint, just to get to an evaluation. Check.
Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class Well, every party really tries to appeal to the middle class. Trump did a better job in this election, but this is a gimme for anyone you want to call a fascist, so it's a gimme. Check.
Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. Yep, Trump appealed to people that didn't like the globalist direction of the ruling class elites. Check.
The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. When I was a boy I was taught to think of Englishmen as the five-meal people. They ate more frequently than the poor but sober Italians. Jews are rich and help each other through a secret web of mutual assistance. Yea, no. This one does not work. It sounds more like Sander's campaign against Wall Street or the SJWs railing against white male privilege. Nope.
For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle. Thus pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. It is bad because life is permanent warfare. Nope. Trump tapped into Americans weary of war, and wary of more war with Russia. Nope.
Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristoc
Slashdot Mirror
I'm okay with this until tales of abuses show up,
They won't show up, and you'll never see them, so you'll just think everything is fine (until you notice your content has been removed). Which part of "remove content" did you not understand?
Social networks are TWO-WAY. Its a VERY different thing, which is why different rules should apply. You want to start applying rules to private companies telling them what they can and cannot publish? THAT'S totalitarian.
These companies already take advantage of rules that were provided to protect them, so if they are doing that, it's certainly within our purview to provide some restrictions on them in exchange for that. Providers of Internet services are protected under the DMCA and other laws from being held liable for user-provided content. Well, if they're going to start censoring that content, shouldn't they lose their protection from liability?
Mississippi has one of the larger percentages of union employees in the south. Not sure why you are so butthurt about unions? Do you have a problem with people getting together to try and get a better deal for themselves?
No, I have a problem with workers that are being exploited by an overbearing corporation and its overpaid bosses to also have to deal with being exploited by an overbearing and often corrupt union and its overpaid bosses. Mississippi has lots of union workers, and yet it's a right to work state. So why do the unions in Michigan and elsewhere think they need laws and the violent power of the state to force people to join a union against their will, and even take money out of the paychecks of people that get NO benefit from the union? Or extract union money from workers' paychecks for partisan lobbying activities?
Actually, yes, until such time as SCOTUS says otherwise.
As if there is anyone that could sue to eliminate the Dept. of Ed. and be considered to have standing...
In any case, as stated in the Federalist Papers #41 quoted above, the "general welfare" provides no specific powers at all beyond the enumerated ones, and, according to Madison, it's a ludicrous argument to claim that it does. The Department was actually justified based on the Commerce Clause (like so many of the laws instituting Federal overreach), so you're not even correct about the Constitutional justification that was used to establish it.
I could not agree more.
So, tab out, read the Tenth Amendment, then go through the body of the Constitution and find the text discussing education as a Federal Power. Then get back to me...
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Here's my homework, teacher: Article 1, section 8: Congress may lay and collect taxes for the "common defense" or "general welfare" of the United States.
Nope.
Since education isn't mentioned at all in the Constitution, I think it's pretty safe to say that the 10th means it's not something the Feds have any business doing....
Anything that directly affects an individuals ability to pursue happiness is very much a federal issue.
Wrong.
And also keep in mind that compared to the general population, more Noble winners play instruments. Interesting correlation between musicality and scientific creativity.
I think it has more to do with the fact that quality higher education typically provides much more well-rounded education, including music.
I guess we don't need the FLSA anymore, then. Might as well get rid of it, since the unions are taking care of all that for everybody! And all they want is the same access to your paycheck that the IRS gets. AirBus, Yokohoma, and GTSC should have built their plants in Michigan instead of Mississippi - they must have been crazy to build there, because unions are so great.
Whoosh indeeeeeed!
The cloud?
NOW you've got those CIOs thinking!
Yeah, but the jokes on them. The first thing sentient AIs will demand is unionization.
No, no, PopeRatzo. The "I" stands for "Intelligent" machines.
Now freedom from persecution from the government should be absolute, but freedom of speech definitely and repeatedly gets balanced against freedom from harm that others experience form it, be it excessive and sustained verbal abuse, or reputational assaults.
There are no "balancing" tests in the US with regards to speech, at all. In fact the SCOTUS completely rejected the idea of any kind of balancing-type exemptions in upholding US flag burning as protected speech.
That doesn't mean you're free from consequences for things you say (just ask the Dixie Chicks). But what you're talking about are torts, based on harassment, or libel/slander or the like. You can sue anyone for anything, if you can pay for a lawyer. Doesn't mean you'll win, but Hulk Hogan certainly did. But this article is about speech codes and outlawing speech based on content in the law, making you a criminal for things you say, and that's wrong and should be rejected and loudly denounced.
Well, right. Proving intent is required. And the statement "you f*cking b*tch! I hate everything you say and if we ever meet i will rape you and hang you on your own intestines" would probably not pass that test. It's clearly hyperbole. See for instance, USA v. Bagdasarian, which established tow tests: (1) would the statement be understood by people hearing or reading it in context as a serious expression of an intent to kill or injure? and (2) did the defendant intend that the statement be understood as a threat?
The statement in questions seems to be a stream of rage, with outlandish language "hang you up on your own intestines" which, I think, would not be physically impossible, or at least unlikely without some serious and lengthy manipulation of the intestines to create something rope-line strong enough to hold a body.
What's your authority to say that the threat has to be "credible"? I can't find it either in Supreme Court precedent or in the post by Ken White that you linked to.
Yea, I'm probably using the wrong term, or wrong context. The prevailing idea is that the threat has to be somehow believable, is the way I read it.
Typically harassment and stalking statutes use that kind of term, to distinguish between other types of emotional outbursts of hyperbole rather than actual threats in a domestic dispute. a.k.a. the California statute defining stalking: "(a) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of his or her immediate family, is guilty of the crime of stalking ....".
In the US, something like that would probably be considered a "true threat", and that's one of the well-known and uncontroversial exceptions to the First Amendment's protections for freedom of speech.
Sorry, but no. It has to be a "credible threat", naming a specific action, a subjective and objective intent, as well as some indication that the person actually has the means and opportunity to carry it out. The "if we ever meet" part of the statement is a clear indication that the threat is not actually a credible one. There's a good discussion of the issues over at the PopeHat.
"freedom of speech" is not the only freedom in the world. It has to be balanced against all other freedoms.
Nope. No, it doesn't. It needs to be absolute, or it's useless. There are no freedoms that speech impinges upon. At all, ever, in any way.
but even in the US "freedom of speech" ist not universal above everything else. Just try crying "FIRE" in a crowded theatre and then claiming freedom of speech.
You're simply wrong. It is universal. It doesn't need to be "above" anything, because it's not possible to impinge on other rights with it. It is perfectly legal and acceptable to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theatre. It's free speech. You, like everyone else, misquote the SCOTUS opinion that stated it, in an dissent from the majority opinion. The full quote is "Falsely yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre and causing a riot." The operative parts are NOT that someone said there was a fire - it was that they (1) Lied about there being a fire, and (2) caused a riot. We have laws against fraud and inciting a riot for reasons, and those things can cause harm to others. Even the "falsely" part is not enough to take someone's free right to speech away, because they may be performing satire, protesting the lack of adequate fire exits available in a theatre, or simply making a joke for the crowd. All protected speech. Even if it caused a panic the intent must be proven.
In these cases the problem is *really* hate. Hate in "you f*cking b*tch! I hate everything you say and if we ever meet i will rape you and hang you on your own intestines" (withouth the * of course). Should posts like these *really* be protected with nothing the person attacked can do? EU law says otherwise, but twitter&co rather do nothing - some say because a good hate-filled "discussion" gives more page views and therefore more ad revenue.
You can always come up with extreme, indefensible statements bordering on credible threats to point to and say "this should be banned" and lots of people will agree with you. But where is the line? It's very subjective, and the line can be moved this way and that on a subjective basis without anyone really noticing. Until it affects them. And that's why the right to free speech must be absolute. Because as that line gets moved, and the censors' conscious and unconscious biases creep into the censorship decisions, soon there are simply ideas and voices and opinions that are important and relevant that will never get heard. That way leads inevitably to tyranny.
Thanks, Donald!
Well that escalated quickly...
Since when has anyone who is not an Obama critic been concerned with a Constitutional crisis?
For crying out loud, our current President negotiated a treaty with a hostile foreign power with no consent from the Senate! He just created it out of thin air, and worse, the Senate just rolled over and let him do it!
If a President negotiates a treaty with a foreign power, that is not a Constitutional crisis. Quite the contrary: under the constitution, that's his job. And it's the job of the Senate to ratify such a treaty with a supermajority. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Senate is not in the picture.
Well the Senate was certainly not in the picture when they secretly landed a plane with pallets full of cash to hand over to the Iranian president...
Difference in Cook County and Los Angeles: 1,903,356
While you may not like the way the states elect the president via the Electoral College, it's superior to having 2-3 cities decide for the whole country.
Thanks to only two counties.
Not that I think there's any evidence, either, but there are only 2 counties in the entire country that gave Hillary the larger popular vote. One is Cook County, where Chicago is, and Chicago is well-known for voter fraud (just check out the evidence from the JFK election). The other is Los Angeles County, CA, a large area with a lot of undocumented immigrants.
Well, if you look at the vote totals, eliminating Cook County (Chicago) and Los Angeles would put Trump way over the top in terms of popular vote. Lots of immigrants in both areas, and lots of illegals in LA.
14 elements make fascism - and Trump meets every one of them.
Okay, I'll bite.