If you're going to make them walk around with a scarlet letter 'M' on their chests for the rest of their lives,
No one is making the murderers Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber wear a scarlet letter 'M'. People are simply exercising their right to free expression.
Turning this around such that it is not the murderers Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber trying to force someone to comply with their wishes but Wikipedia forcing the murderers Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber to... something, I'm not sure... (I'm pretty sure they're not actually wearing any scarlet letters, unless they choose to) well, it might be cute but it's not really terribly accurate
You release them because they have completed their sentence. Government has only so much authority and has none to continue to incarcerate an individual past the end of their sentence. Nor should it. Similarly the government should not have the authority to prevent people from pointing out the fact that Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber killed Walter Sedlma.
The free speech rights of other individuals does not need to be infringed. Actions have consequences and I have no problem with murderers living with the stigma of their crime for the remainder of their life. Particularly when their victim has to live with the consequences of the murderer's crime for the rest of their life. Or not.
Of course, these are my values and my nations system of government. Other nations are welcome to employ some other system of government and system of values. Fine and dandy. Until they try to prevent me from pointing out that Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber killed Walter Sedlma.
"Chances are a few banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs would still end up running the world under Libertarianism"
the entities you refer to owe their existence to the notion that the owners of those entities ought to be shielded from liability for the actions of that entity (that's what the addendum "ltd" at the end of the name means: "liability limited by shares"). Do you assume that under a purely libertarian system, the shareholders of such entities would not be held responsible for the conduct of their business as they currently are not? if so, why?
Personal responsibility is a big theme in libertarian circles. The notion that personal responsibility can/should be limited simply by paying a fee and appointing a board of directors (the fall guys) is hardly a libertarian idea.
According to ST:Voyager, no. I recall an episode in which the doctor has written a holoplay/story and it is published without his permission. The publisher claims that as a hologram, the doctor is unable to control whether or not his work gets published.
virtually all statistics gathered so far show that with U.S. private healthcare system, on average, people get less care for more money
At which point it is wise to consider whether private healthcare/socialised healthcare is the only difference or if there might not be something else in the mix such as the cost of malpractice insurance and the cost of defensive medicine driven by the failure of successive US governments to reign in the costs associated with their legal system.
Judging by his conduct thus far, I imagine that's what he plans to do
b) how often does "but I didn't mean to steal it!" work in real-world...
You've got the cart before the horse here. If the act wasn't deliberate, it wasn't theft at all. He's saying "but I didn't steal it" rather than something contrived to demonstrate his "guilt"
Or maybe just time poor? Time is the only irreplaceable resource. You only have so much of it and you don't know in advance how much. Being forced to waste it is, while not "neck and neck with genocide" pretty damned evil.
Yeah, since it seems from the summary that you would first have to remove the original organ, I don't see that being an attractive option except for men with particularly severe problems. It would be one thing if the original organ was clearly too small to be functional (see link) but lopping off a perfectly good (if averagely endowed) penis? Seems pretty doubtful.
You may be right on faster, but IMO you're almost certainly wrong on "higher probability". Lawlessness amongst law enforcement officers is far more likely not only to get people killed but to get more people killed than revealing information about undercover operations that is already publicly available.
Police corruption is a very big deal and overlooking the occasional fruitcake who does things that are kinda silly (OK, very silly) is a very small price to pay for preserving the ability of the public to lawfully investigate and expose lawlessness on the part of those charged with the responsibility and (more importantly) the authority to enforce the law.
I find it quite distressing that police corruption can be considered so very trivial when its effects are so overwhelmingly negative both upon the individuals directly affected and upon the society upon which it feeds
although once the money gets into the system it's hard to get it out again
Gosh, I'm so terribly surprised. Actually, surprisingly(!) I am (though not all that terribly). I can't believe I thought people would just get their bail back when they show up
So if some random guy happens to take a bribe while off duty then that shouldn't be up to consideration because you drew that particular line?
Fixed that for you. A police officer off duty has the same rights as the rest of us.
Well since cops can watch whoever they please when that individual is in a public place, regardless of whether that individual is working or not and since this woman only watched the cop when he was in public places...
seems to me he's being treated no different from any other "random guy"
The relevant phrase from the link you provided is: "Makes a credible threat". That the officer felt threatened does not necessarily mean that she made a threat... credible or otherwise. The clear intent of the law quoted is to punish people who threaten police officers, also from the link: "The victim does not have to prove that the stalker had the intent to carry out the threat" (emphasis added)
"People go on and on about the rights their society gives them"
Society does not give people rights. Rights exist regardless of whether the society that we live in agree that we have them or not. Or, to put it far more eloquently than I could: people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
"without bothering to mention the responsibilities"
A persons responsibility is to obey the law. It is, I think, fair to say that while people might go on and on about the rights that their society had nothing to do with giving them, our rights aren't getting wider and more sweeping in nearly that same fashion that our responsibility (to obey the law) is getting.
I assure you that I find people who go on and on about responsibilities at least as irritating as you find people who go on and on about rights that are being infringed upon by the very force instituted to secure those rights.
"Really? What, you don't think the courts would find guilty a group who's goal is to incite violence against white..."
Since hate crimes legislation invariably spells out exactly which groups are protected and, by exclusion, those that are not, no. I don't.
Hatred does not require organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialist White Peoples Party and neither does hate crimes legislation specify that offenders must belong to such groups. Individuals are perfectly capable of hatred and there is no shortage of individuals who hate white people because white people are "privileged" or because they believe that white nations deprived them of the prosperity to which they feel entitled.
"It just means you're lucky enough that you don't need said protections in the first place."
The only protections that I want, or need for that matter, are the same protections that everyone else gets. Regardless of whether they are basement dwellers or just brainless tools. Oh, gosh, hope that didn't sound like a flame.
I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male. What does this group have to fear from hate speech? They control the US
I'm not sure whether to award this the poorly timed comment of the year award (just exactly what color is Americas president exactly?) or to declare it the single most compressed example of racism, heterephobia, christophobia and androphobia in a single sentence.
What "this group" has to fear from hate speech is exactly the same thing that Theo Van Gogh had to fear, as you yourself point out. Ironically, despite characterizing his murder as a hate crime, you specifically exclude white males like Theo Van Gogh from requiring protection against hate crimes. Even if you did concede that some very few white males might require such protection, would this have prevented or ameliorated his murder in any way?
A crime committed against a green woman of unusual sexuality who worships the great green arkleseizure is no less a crime if it is committed against a white heterosexual christian male. If you're going to forbid people from speaking their mind, forbid equally. Because categorizing people by color, race, sexuality and religion as you explicitly do is stupid. It's all very well for some twit who has exactly zero political influence beyond his single vote to categorize folk based on such criteria and we should tolerate that stupidity. It's quite another thing for the state to put the armed force of its will behind such categorizations.
A white heterosexual christian male from Ordinarytown Somewhereobscure has exactly nothing in common with Joe "No stimulus for white male construction workers" Biden.
The problem with hate speech laws is not that they have been poorly named. It is that they do not provide equal protection. (Also, they're downright evil. But that's not really germane here)
Laws forbidding harassment protect me just as well as they protect minorities.
Laws forbidding fraud protect me just as well as they protect minorities.
Laws forbidding libel protect me just as well as they protect minorities.
Laws forbidding slander protect me just as well as they protect minorities
Laws forbidding hatred do not protect me at all. They fail to protect me regardless of whether anyone hates me or not. Lets not continue kidding ourselves, racism is part of the human condition, not a defect exclusive to people with a melanin deficiency.
Speaking of the murder of the guard, cop killers get harsher sentences too, likely including death, since cops represent a symbolic group with extra risks - in other words, a hate crimes. I wonder if all those against special protections for minority groups are also against harsher penalties for killing cops, assassinating heads of state, etc?
The guard, the cop or the head of state are no deader for being murdered for forbidden reasons than the middle class white guy who got murdered for "permissible" reasons. See, just saying it out loud it sounds ridiculous doesn't it?
Yes. I'm against having harsher penalties for killing people who are not me than there are for killing me. Do the words "equal protection" mean nothing anymore?
I'm fairly sure this ruling only helps you if you have "pty ltd" after your name. Otherwise it either identifies you (if you're accused of stealing music) or it doesn't (if someone is collecting your IP address in violation of your TOS)
Now if only I could get modded +5 cynical
Long term thinking is all very well so long as the short term picture doesn't sneak up and slit your throat before you get there. We can't "get off oil" tomorrow, that would achieve much the same effect as carpet bombing Americas 20 biggest cities would have. Until there is a viable long term alternative to fossil fuels for baseload electrical power, heating, cooking and transportation, it makes sense to pursue short term solutions to energy problems at the same time is we pursue long term renewable sources of energy
Slashdot Mirror
No one is making the murderers Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber wear a scarlet letter 'M'. People are simply exercising their right to free expression.
Turning this around such that it is not the murderers Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber trying to force someone to comply with their wishes but Wikipedia forcing the murderers Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber to... something, I'm not sure... (I'm pretty sure they're not actually wearing any scarlet letters, unless they choose to) well, it might be cute but it's not really terribly accurate
.
You release them because they have completed their sentence. Government has only so much authority and has none to continue to incarcerate an individual past the end of their sentence. Nor should it. Similarly the government should not have the authority to prevent people from pointing out the fact that Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber killed Walter Sedlma.
The free speech rights of other individuals does not need to be infringed. Actions have consequences and I have no problem with murderers living with the stigma of their crime for the remainder of their life. Particularly when their victim has to live with the consequences of the murderer's crime for the rest of their life. Or not.
Of course, these are my values and my nations system of government. Other nations are welcome to employ some other system of government and system of values. Fine and dandy. Until they try to prevent me from pointing out that Wolfgang Werle and Manfred Lauber killed Walter Sedlma.
the entities you refer to owe their existence to the notion that the owners of those entities ought to be shielded from liability for the actions of that entity (that's what the addendum "ltd" at the end of the name means: "liability limited by shares"). Do you assume that under a purely libertarian system, the shareholders of such entities would not be held responsible for the conduct of their business as they currently are not? if so, why?
Personal responsibility is a big theme in libertarian circles. The notion that personal responsibility can/should be limited simply by paying a fee and appointing a board of directors (the fall guys) is hardly a libertarian idea.
According to ST:Voyager, no. I recall an episode in which the doctor has written a holoplay/story and it is published without his permission. The publisher claims that as a hologram, the doctor is unable to control whether or not his work gets published.
At which point it is wise to consider whether private healthcare/socialised healthcare is the only difference or if there might not be something else in the mix such as the cost of malpractice insurance and the cost of defensive medicine driven by the failure of successive US governments to reign in the costs associated with their legal system.
Sure but meth heads love to wear hoodies anyway.
Most likely because the meth heads who don't wear hoodies get caught and as a result they fail to breed as often as their hoodie wearing friends :)
a) tell the jury that
Judging by his conduct thus far, I imagine that's what he plans to do
b) how often does "but I didn't mean to steal it!" work in real-world...
You've got the cart before the horse here. If the act wasn't deliberate, it wasn't theft at all. He's saying "but I didn't steal it" rather than something contrived to demonstrate his "guilt"
Dr. Damage, intent is not a requirement of all crimes.
We're talking about theft here, not all crimes
In order to prove that theft has taken place, it is necessary to prove that the accused intended to steal. Or to put it another way: actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty". Thus, if indeed, taking the proprietary code was inadvertent, he is not guilty of theft.
Or maybe just time poor? Time is the only irreplaceable resource. You only have so much of it and you don't know in advance how much. Being forced to waste it is, while not "neck and neck with genocide" pretty damned evil.
Yeah, since it seems from the summary that you would first have to remove the original organ, I don't see that being an attractive option except for men with particularly severe problems. It would be one thing if the original organ was clearly too small to be functional (see link) but lopping off a perfectly good (if averagely endowed) penis? Seems pretty doubtful.
You may be right on faster, but IMO you're almost certainly wrong on "higher probability". Lawlessness amongst law enforcement officers is far more likely not only to get people killed but to get more people killed than revealing information about undercover operations that is already publicly available.
Police corruption is a very big deal and overlooking the occasional fruitcake who does things that are kinda silly (OK, very silly) is a very small price to pay for preserving the ability of the public to lawfully investigate and expose lawlessness on the part of those charged with the responsibility and (more importantly) the authority to enforce the law.
I find it quite distressing that police corruption can be considered so very trivial when its effects are so overwhelmingly negative both upon the individuals directly affected and upon the society upon which it feeds
Gosh, I'm so terribly surprised. Actually, surprisingly(!) I am (though not all that terribly). I can't believe I thought people would just get their bail back when they show up
Because corruption never ever leads to people getting killed.
So if some random guy happens to take a bribe while off duty then that shouldn't be up to consideration because you drew that particular line?
Fixed that for you. A police officer off duty has the same rights as the rest of us.
Well since cops can watch whoever they please when that individual is in a public place, regardless of whether that individual is working or not and since this woman only watched the cop when he was in public places...
seems to me he's being treated no different from any other "random guy"
The relevant phrase from the link you provided is: "Makes a credible threat". That the officer felt threatened does not necessarily mean that she made a threat... credible or otherwise. The clear intent of the law quoted is to punish people who threaten police officers, also from the link: "The victim does not have to prove that the stalker had the intent to carry out the threat" (emphasis added)
Society does not give people rights. Rights exist regardless of whether the society that we live in agree that we have them or not. Or, to put it far more eloquently than I could: people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."
A persons responsibility is to obey the law. It is, I think, fair to say that while people might go on and on about the rights that their society had nothing to do with giving them, our rights aren't getting wider and more sweeping in nearly that same fashion that our responsibility (to obey the law) is getting.
I assure you that I find people who go on and on about responsibilities at least as irritating as you find people who go on and on about rights that are being infringed upon by the very force instituted to secure those rights.
Since hate crimes legislation invariably spells out exactly which groups are protected and, by exclusion, those that are not, no. I don't.
Hatred does not require organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialist White Peoples Party and neither does hate crimes legislation specify that offenders must belong to such groups. Individuals are perfectly capable of hatred and there is no shortage of individuals who hate white people because white people are "privileged" or because they believe that white nations deprived them of the prosperity to which they feel entitled.
The only protections that I want, or need for that matter, are the same protections that everyone else gets. Regardless of whether they are basement dwellers or just brainless tools. Oh, gosh, hope that didn't sound like a flame.
I'm not sure whether to award this the poorly timed comment of the year award (just exactly what color is Americas president exactly?) or to declare it the single most compressed example of racism, heterephobia, christophobia and androphobia in a single sentence.
What "this group" has to fear from hate speech is exactly the same thing that Theo Van Gogh had to fear, as you yourself point out. Ironically, despite characterizing his murder as a hate crime, you specifically exclude white males like Theo Van Gogh from requiring protection against hate crimes. Even if you did concede that some very few white males might require such protection, would this have prevented or ameliorated his murder in any way?
A crime committed against a green woman of unusual sexuality who worships the great green arkleseizure is no less a crime if it is committed against a white heterosexual christian male. If you're going to forbid people from speaking their mind, forbid equally. Because categorizing people by color, race, sexuality and religion as you explicitly do is stupid. It's all very well for some twit who has exactly zero political influence beyond his single vote to categorize folk based on such criteria and we should tolerate that stupidity. It's quite another thing for the state to put the armed force of its will behind such categorizations.
A white heterosexual christian male from Ordinarytown Somewhereobscure has exactly nothing in common with Joe "No stimulus for white male construction workers" Biden.
The problem with hate speech laws is not that they have been poorly named. It is that they do not provide equal protection. (Also, they're downright evil. But that's not really germane here)
Laws forbidding harassment protect me just as well as they protect minorities.
Laws forbidding fraud protect me just as well as they protect minorities.
Laws forbidding libel protect me just as well as they protect minorities.
Laws forbidding slander protect me just as well as they protect minorities
Laws forbidding hatred do not protect me at all. They fail to protect me regardless of whether anyone hates me or not. Lets not continue kidding ourselves, racism is part of the human condition, not a defect exclusive to people with a melanin deficiency.
The guard, the cop or the head of state are no deader for being murdered for forbidden reasons than the middle class white guy who got murdered for "permissible" reasons. See, just saying it out loud it sounds ridiculous doesn't it?
Yes. I'm against having harsher penalties for killing people who are not me than there are for killing me. Do the words "equal protection" mean nothing anymore?
I'm fairly sure this ruling only helps you if you have "pty ltd" after your name. Otherwise it either identifies you (if you're accused of stealing music) or it doesn't (if someone is collecting your IP address in violation of your TOS) Now if only I could get modded +5 cynical
If you can afford the car, the ticket price on the tires isn't even going to make you wince.
Long term thinking is all very well so long as the short term picture doesn't sneak up and slit your throat before you get there. We can't "get off oil" tomorrow, that would achieve much the same effect as carpet bombing Americas 20 biggest cities would have. Until there is a viable long term alternative to fossil fuels for baseload electrical power, heating, cooking and transportation, it makes sense to pursue short term solutions to energy problems at the same time is we pursue long term renewable sources of energy
No.
If the police are unenthusiastic about doing their fucking job, which I get taxed so that they can be paid to do would I be outraged? Oh hell yes!