That's ridiculous. Chat rooms are public places. Why should government agents be prohibited from doing what any other member of the public could do?
Sounds kinda like the KGB. Gov't shouldn't be spying on its own people. Imagine what will happen once people realize that anyone in the bar could be spying on them. People will suddenly watch what they say alot more (as in, perhaps not question the Pres in public).
I agree. In rochester ny the Nerve used to be the best station around; then around 98 i think they were bought by CCC. They soon started playing the same crap as the radio station bought out in Philly.
Unless, it appears, country B is the USA. e.g. the Skylaroff case. There are also sound countries which attempt to apply their own laws to their citizens, whereever they may happen to be.
Skylaroff should not have been arrested, i agree. He commited the 'crime' in another country which does not have similar laws. However, the company can be procecuted b/c its servers and sales are all done in the US. The location of the servers determines jurisdiction. Which is why i don't pay sales tax when ordering online from someplace outside my home state.
There is one exception, and that's commerce. If you do business with someone in another jurisdiction, you are subject to the commerce laws in that jurisdiction.
How is that an exception? You are doing buisness in THIER jurisdiction. If i'm a street vendor, i follow the laws of whatever jurisdiction i'm in. In the case of the internet, its whereever the servers processing the transaction (credit card) is located. Which is why i don't pay sales tax except when ordering from something in my home state.
So if you find a law that is against common sense, change it. You can't just decide that it means something else all together than how it was written.
Whoever said to do that? At most i've been saying to learn the philosphy behind the constition, so that we can better interperate it. Not to interperate however we want, but the way it was intended. To do that, i think we need to understand the ideas behind the document.
Thats why the framers made it possible to change the Constitution. Thats why we have that ability. Because changes must be made from time to time.
I agree. But this has been a mixed blessing at best. I refer you to prohibition.
Apologists will just say its all about common sense. They are wrong. Its all about principle, because without principle all we have is a loose collection of laws governed by anarchy. And that is exactly where we are today - the Executive, the Congress, the Judicary, and the People have lost their governance principles.
You seem to be confused. First you say we need to follow common sense, then you say we shouldn't. Since the framers were products of the Enlightenment, i think they would say that common sense (logic) should help decide law. They law must be logical. And for them, the works of locke and keyes are logical. i would have to agree.
Gossip is always legal. Its never illegal. Gossip is just that. If you take gossip at face value you are an idiot.
Even if its untrue? What if that idiot that takes the gossip at face value is a potential employer? I would say that is not protected, because it is causing harm to another (who presumably did nothing). I think the founders would agree; read the works of Locke and Keyes which inspired them. Read the founders works as well.
I dont want to punish anyone, but re-read the 1st amendment. There is no "except when it might hurt people" clause. Its just not there.
If you really understand the context and thought behind the words, you might disagree. If the speech causes unwarrented harm on someone, i think its pretty clear based on the philosophy behind the Constition. Again, read Locke or Keyes; these are trhe ideas upon which the Constition were built.
and historical trappings.
Well i could argue the constition is an old thing, and a historical trapping. If i do that, i can justify scrapping it.
God does not give you the right to say anything. God gives you the ability to say anything, and hopefully be able to know WHAT to say and when to say it. God gives yoiu the freedom to say what you want, but say the wrong thing, and you will get burnt. It's as simple as that.
I don't think god cares what you say; i'd think he cares more of what you do. At any rate, we are talking about the laws of the US, not what god thinks.
Also the constitiution does say that they shall make no law restricting speech and I am not saying that they have not done just that (Campaign Finance Reform anyone??)
Yes, it is spelling out a right that you have. However you also have to understand the context it was written in. Jefferson et al studied the philosophy of Keyes and Locke. Basically, they believe that you may do as you please, as long as you do not interfere with another. So while the First Amendment does say we have freedom of speech, i think its reasonable that you can say as you please as long as you don't interfere (cause harm) to someone else. Know the philophy and spirit behind the Constition.
Also that's for the FEDERAL government. Your local laws can be different. The feds make no laws regarding things like inciting a riot. That's to be decided by the states. Also, and again, you MUST think about when the constitution was written.....the First Amendment was wrote so that the President or Congress could not make a law restricting POLITICAL speech.
Federal laws always override state and local laws. The Constition overrides all. So no, states cannot limit speech anymore then the fed gov't can. Read the first Amendment. It makes no distinction to political speech. Knowing the philophy behind the 1st amendment, i would have to say that it doesn't just apply to political speech.
The rest of the protections are just a bonus. Jefferson and the rest just wanted to make sure the US government did not have powers that the King of England did. Same does for separation of church and state. Anytime the government want's to do something like start a school voucher program so we can take our money back and use it for the same thing(just at a private, sometimes a religious school) we are told oh no that violates the separation of church and state....(no it does not....the separation of church and state means that the state cannot start a church and say you can only go there....like the King did in England!). People confuse this stuff all of the time.
Sounds like you're the one who's confused. They wanted more then just to prevent another King of England. Again, please read the Founders philosophical writings, as well as the writings that inspired them (Locke and Keyes). They are not bonuses, they are the most important ones. Not being listed does not mean that we don't have other rights (which i believe Amendment 10 states), but i think Jefferson et al wanted to be absolutely clear on these 10. If we have these 10, we can be insured that we can protect our other rights.
People confuse this stuff all of the time. And, I will say again:
Libel cannot be a protected speech Slander cannot be a protected speech Defaming speech cannot be a protected speech.
Some can say that restricts speech....no it does not. Sure, you can say it, but you will face the consequences if it damages someone reputation beyond repair.
You are allowed to print slanderous things. However, you are also allowed to be punished if it turns out it is slanderous. You cannot make something up to try and damage someoens reputation. If its true, you are allowed to say it i would think, even if it did damage someones reputation. For example, if a senator murdered someone, news of this even would certainly damage his reputation and cause him harm, but this is harm he brought on himself by causing hram to another first.
But he will not do anything because he is at "war" with terrorism.
Seems that criticism is not welcome. Its one of our rights to question our leaders, yet it seems that Cheney doesn't agree. Kinda scary in a way.
I agree, there are still other problems that need to be dealt with. And they are not being handled. Bush does seem to find time to begin attempting to turn back the clock, though. I'm starting to wonder if he wants everyone to abide by his standards, while we blindly follow and keep him in power.
As a resident of the USA, would you really be that bothered if a court in Japan (for instance) found you guilty of breaking a Japanese law?
I would find it highly illogical that i could be subject to laws of a country i am not currently in. (Yes, when one travels to another country they should follow its laws). If i were to do something legal in Country A, and travel to Country B, i also find it illogical that i could be tried for breaking Country B's laws when i did not commit the act on thier soil.
Now extradition is a seperate matter, and for very few crimes i believe it necessary. Murder, for example.
isn't it? I'm willing to bet that many, Jefferson and friends included, would be willing to argue that law MUST obey common sense (ie be governed by reason and logic).
While i agree with most of your position, i do not believe you have the right to say whatever you want about another, UNLESS ITS TRUE AND YOU ARE ABLE TO PROVE IT.
Whats to stop your neighbor then from saying that you smoke pot all night after you come home? What if the rumor persisted in town? It could possibly damage your reputation, and you have no way to disprove it either. Now you are suffering bc of someones libeless (sp?) speech. So since you cannot disprove it, your neighbor should not be allowed to say it unless he can also prove it. Proving your innocence can be very much harder then proving your guilt. And since we don't wnat to punish innocent people simply b/c there is no way to prove thier innocent, all are innocent until proven guilty.
Free speech is a priviledge, not a right (it's only called a right under the constitution)
I did agree with you, up until i read this. You obviously are a clueless fuck, stupid beyond belief. Leave this country and go to one that really thinks free speech is a privledge.
From your comment, i see you have not studied the works and beliefs of Jefferson, et al., nor the philosophy in which those beliefs are founded. If you said that freedom of the press is a privledge and just called a right in the Bill of Rights then you must believe that the others are just privledges also. So i guess that means that women's suffrage is just a privledge, as is the right to unresonalbe search.
While i agree that people need to be held accountable for what they say (assuming they are in a reasonable state of mind), there should never be a penalty for saying the truth. Libel should only apply when one is spreading false statements that they cannot back up.
You also meantion the famous 'yelling fire in the theater' arguement as a reason why speech shouldn't always be free. I believe your arguement is wrong. People are perfectly within their rights to do that. However, they are not within their right to harm others. In this case, the harm is panic and injures resulting from that panic, be it heart attack or being trampled by someone else. They do not have the right to pull emergency workers to a site where there is no real fire (and thus possibly preventing them from responding to a real emergency).
I'm sure you think i'm nitpicking, but these are subtle but important distinctions. Read the first ten Amendments (the Bill of Rights) and compare to the one banning alcohol (Prohibition). You'll see this subtlety again. Its not 'people have the right to free speech.' Its "gov't shall make no law restricting speech." Whereas the prohibition amendment is talking in terms of what the people may not do. Which is itself another difference, the protection of a right spelled out, vs. the taking away of one.
worried about what consenting adults did in their spare time
Exactly. Everyone knows what to expect on a roller coster. There are signs warning that if you have specific conditions not to get on. And more importantly, you know how you've reacted to the rides in the past. So if you chose to get on, you should have every right to.
I think the problem is that more and more however people watn the gov't to protect them. So thats what they are doing.
And who is to stop companies from doing a "We current have you loosing out on theses free benefits. If you would like benifit we have un marked this box allowing us to use your information. If you would not like theses free benifit please remark."
Nothing, b/c you won't be able to sue if they don't abide by your opt out request.
How does a song that you don't know, from a band that you've never heard, expose itself to you on any of the P2P programs?
Something like this. 'I want that new song, whatever. Found it on this guys computer. Wonder what else he has? Hmm, he has alot of stuff i like. I never heard of these guys before tho, but since this host has other songs i like i'll try it. Wow, they're good.' I've found quite a bit of music like that. I ended up buying alot of music i would have skipped over when looking through the music store before.
When complaining about the copy protection on red alert 2 that was screwing up my cd drive, i was told that westwood would send me an unopened copy of the game, which i could then return. I probably had to send them the opened copy of the game first.
No its not. There is no god given right to make money by being a muscian. If no one wants to pay, then you either a) find another job and/or b) continue b/c you enjoy doing it.
I like programming, but it is not my right to earn any kind of living from doing it. If something came along (AI programs for us, or some such thing), then i guess i'dhave to find another job wouldn't i?
(don't start with the "I shouldn't have to pay for it" crap, you want free? you get spam!).
I do pay jackass. My email comes with my internet connection.
Should i pay EXTRA to block telemarketer calls? I don't think so, and i dont' think i should have to pay not to be bothered. It is after all a right i have.
Um i think i have a right to say 'No, you cannot snail mail me' and 'no you cannot call me.' So why don't i have the right to say 'no you cannot email me.' Its not censorship if the audience does not want to hear what you have to say. Yes they have a right to speech, but that doesn't mean they can call me if i do not wish to listen.
Censorship requires a 3rd party between the person 'giving' the speech and the person 'receiving' it.
Since you need food to live,and you have the right to live, i would say that you have the right to eat. Meaning that the food would have to be affordable.
Slashdot Mirror
That's ridiculous. Chat rooms are public places. Why should government agents be prohibited from doing what any other member of the public could do?
Sounds kinda like the KGB. Gov't shouldn't be spying on its own people. Imagine what will happen once people realize that anyone in the bar could be spying on them. People will suddenly watch what they say alot more (as in, perhaps not question the Pres in public).
YOU pay a long distance charge, just for answering your phone.
A) No, you are paying for airtime, not long distance.
B) It is illegal to place telemarketing calls to cell phones, because it is costing you money.
I agree. In rochester ny the Nerve used to be the best station around; then around 98 i think they were bought by CCC. They soon started playing the same crap as the radio station bought out in Philly.
They have the right to speech, but not the right to force me to listen. Get a clue.
Unless, it appears, country B is the USA. e.g. the Skylaroff case.
There are also sound countries which attempt to apply their own laws to their citizens, whereever they may happen to be.
Skylaroff should not have been arrested, i agree. He commited the 'crime' in another country which does not have similar laws. However, the company can be procecuted b/c its servers and sales are all done in the US. The location of the servers determines jurisdiction. Which is why i don't pay sales tax when ordering online from someplace outside my home state.
There is one exception, and that's commerce. If you do business with someone in another jurisdiction, you are subject to the commerce laws in that jurisdiction.
How is that an exception? You are doing buisness in THIER jurisdiction. If i'm a street vendor, i follow the laws of whatever jurisdiction i'm in. In the case of the internet, its whereever the servers processing the transaction (credit card) is located. Which is why i don't pay sales tax except when ordering from something in my home state.
So if you find a law that is against common sense, change it. You can't just decide that it means something else all together than how it was written.
Whoever said to do that? At most i've been saying to learn the philosphy behind the constition, so that we can better interperate it. Not to interperate however we want, but the way it was intended. To do that, i think we need to understand the ideas behind the document.
Thats why the framers made it possible to change the Constitution. Thats why we have that ability. Because changes must be made from time to time.
I agree. But this has been a mixed blessing at best. I refer you to prohibition.
Apologists will just say its all about common sense. They are wrong. Its all about principle, because without principle all we have is a loose collection of laws governed by anarchy. And that is exactly where we are today - the Executive, the Congress, the Judicary, and the People have lost their governance principles.
You seem to be confused. First you say we need to follow common sense, then you say we shouldn't. Since the framers were products of the Enlightenment, i think they would say that common sense (logic) should help decide law. They law must be logical. And for them, the works of locke and keyes are logical. i would have to agree.
Gossip is always legal. Its never illegal. Gossip is just that. If you take gossip at face value you are an idiot.
Even if its untrue? What if that idiot that takes the gossip at face value is a potential employer? I would say that is not protected, because it is causing harm to another (who presumably did nothing). I think the founders would agree; read the works of Locke and Keyes which inspired them. Read the founders works as well.
I dont want to punish anyone, but re-read the 1st amendment. There is no "except when it might hurt people" clause. Its just not there.
If you really understand the context and thought behind the words, you might disagree. If the speech causes unwarrented harm on someone, i think its pretty clear based on the philosophy behind the Constition. Again, read Locke or Keyes; these are trhe ideas upon which the Constition were built.
and historical trappings.
Well i could argue the constition is an old thing, and a historical trapping. If i do that, i can justify scrapping it.
God does not give you the right to say anything. God gives you the ability to say anything, and hopefully be able to know WHAT to say and when to say it. God gives yoiu the freedom to say what you want, but say the wrong thing, and you will get burnt. It's as simple as that.
I don't think god cares what you say; i'd think he cares more of what you do. At any rate, we are talking about the laws of the US, not what god thinks.
Also the constitiution does say that they shall make no law restricting speech and I am not saying that they have not done just that (Campaign Finance Reform anyone??)
Yes, it is spelling out a right that you have. However you also have to understand the context it was written in. Jefferson et al studied the philosophy of Keyes and Locke. Basically, they believe that you may do as you please, as long as you do not interfere with another. So while the First Amendment does say we have freedom of speech, i think its reasonable that you can say as you please as long as you don't interfere (cause harm) to someone else. Know the philophy and spirit behind the Constition.
Also that's for the FEDERAL government. Your local laws can be different. The feds make no laws regarding things like inciting a riot. That's to be decided by the states. Also, and again, you MUST think about when the constitution was written.....the First Amendment was wrote so that the President or Congress could not make a law restricting POLITICAL speech.
Federal laws always override state and local laws. The Constition overrides all. So no, states cannot limit speech anymore then the fed gov't can. Read the first Amendment. It makes no distinction to political speech. Knowing the philophy behind the 1st amendment, i would have to say that it doesn't just apply to political speech.
The rest of the protections are just a bonus. Jefferson and the rest just wanted to make sure the US government did not have powers that the King of England did. Same does for separation of church and state. Anytime the government want's to do something like start a school voucher program so we can take our money back and use it for the same thing(just at a private, sometimes a religious school) we are told oh no that violates the separation of church and state....(no it does not....the separation of church and state means that the state cannot start a church and say you can only go there....like the King did in England!). People confuse this stuff all of the time.
Sounds like you're the one who's confused. They wanted more then just to prevent another King of England. Again, please read the Founders philosophical writings, as well as the writings that inspired them (Locke and Keyes). They are not bonuses, they are the most important ones. Not being listed does not mean that we don't have other rights (which i believe Amendment 10 states), but i think Jefferson et al wanted to be absolutely clear on these 10. If we have these 10, we can be insured that we can protect our other rights.
People confuse this stuff all of the time. And, I will say again:
Libel cannot be a protected speech
Slander cannot be a protected speech
Defaming speech cannot be a protected speech.
Some can say that restricts speech....no it does not. Sure, you can say it, but you will face the consequences if it damages someone reputation beyond repair.
You are allowed to print slanderous things. However, you are also allowed to be punished if it turns out it is slanderous. You cannot make something up to try and damage someoens reputation. If its true, you are allowed to say it i would think, even if it did damage someones reputation. For example, if a senator murdered someone, news of this even would certainly damage his reputation and cause him harm, but this is harm he brought on himself by causing hram to another first.
But he will not do anything because he is at "war" with terrorism.
Seems that criticism is not welcome. Its one of our rights to question our leaders, yet it seems that Cheney doesn't agree. Kinda scary in a way.
I agree, there are still other problems that need to be dealt with. And they are not being handled. Bush does seem to find time to begin attempting to turn back the clock, though. I'm starting to wonder if he wants everyone to abide by his standards, while we blindly follow and keep him in power.
As a resident of the USA, would you really be that bothered if a court in Japan (for instance) found you guilty of breaking a Japanese law?
I would find it highly illogical that i could be subject to laws of a country i am not currently in. (Yes, when one travels to another country they should follow its laws). If i were to do something legal in Country A, and travel to Country B, i also find it illogical that i could be tried for breaking Country B's laws when i did not commit the act on thier soil.
Now extradition is a seperate matter, and for very few crimes i believe it necessary. Murder, for example.
Its not about [...] common sense
isn't it? I'm willing to bet that many, Jefferson and friends included, would be willing to argue that law MUST obey common sense (ie be governed by reason and logic).
While i agree with most of your position, i do not believe you have the right to say whatever you want about another, UNLESS ITS TRUE AND YOU ARE ABLE TO PROVE IT.
Whats to stop your neighbor then from saying that you smoke pot all night after you come home? What if the rumor persisted in town? It could possibly damage your reputation, and you have no way to disprove it either. Now you are suffering bc of someones libeless (sp?) speech. So since you cannot disprove it, your neighbor should not be allowed to say it unless he can also prove it. Proving your innocence can be very much harder then proving your guilt. And since we don't wnat to punish innocent people simply b/c there is no way to prove thier innocent, all are innocent until proven guilty.
Free speech is a priviledge, not a right (it's only called a right under the constitution)
I did agree with you, up until i read this. You obviously are a clueless fuck, stupid beyond belief. Leave this country and go to one that really thinks free speech is a privledge.
From your comment, i see you have not studied the works and beliefs of Jefferson, et al., nor the philosophy in which those beliefs are founded. If you said that freedom of the press is a privledge and just called a right in the Bill of Rights then you must believe that the others are just privledges also. So i guess that means that women's suffrage is just a privledge, as is the right to unresonalbe search.
While i agree that people need to be held accountable for what they say (assuming they are in a reasonable state of mind), there should never be a penalty for saying the truth. Libel should only apply when one is spreading false statements that they cannot back up.
You also meantion the famous 'yelling fire in the theater' arguement as a reason why speech shouldn't always be free. I believe your arguement is wrong. People are perfectly within their rights to do that. However, they are not within their right to harm others. In this case, the harm is panic and injures resulting from that panic, be it heart attack or being trampled by someone else. They do not have the right to pull emergency workers to a site where there is no real fire (and thus possibly preventing them from responding to a real emergency).
I'm sure you think i'm nitpicking, but these are subtle but important distinctions. Read the first ten Amendments (the Bill of Rights) and compare to the one banning alcohol (Prohibition). You'll see this subtlety again. Its not 'people have the right to free speech.' Its "gov't shall make no law restricting speech." Whereas the prohibition amendment is talking in terms of what the people may not do. Which is itself another difference, the protection of a right spelled out, vs. the taking away of one.
worried about what consenting adults did in their spare time
Exactly. Everyone knows what to expect on a roller coster. There are signs warning that if you have specific conditions not to get on. And more importantly, you know how you've reacted to the rides in the past. So if you chose to get on, you should have every right to.
I think the problem is that more and more however people watn the gov't to protect them. So thats what they are doing.
Well does it matter what they are downloading? What about huge amounts of sports pictures?
And who is to stop companies from doing a
"We current have you loosing out on theses free benefits. If you would like benifit we have un marked this box allowing us to use your information. If you would not like theses free benifit please remark."
Nothing, b/c you won't be able to sue if they don't abide by your opt out request.
How does a song that you don't know, from a band that you've never heard, expose itself to you on any of the P2P programs?
Something like this. 'I want that new song, whatever. Found it on this guys computer. Wonder what else he has? Hmm, he has alot of stuff i like. I never heard of these guys before tho, but since this host has other songs i like i'll try it. Wow, they're good.' I've found quite a bit of music like that. I ended up buying alot of music i would have skipped over when looking through the music store before.
You can't say "I shut my eyes everytime I drove past a speed limit sign" and expect a judge to let you off the hook for going 120.
But if you couldn't see the sign unti lafter you passed it, i think you'd have a case.
When complaining about the copy protection on red alert 2 that was screwing up my cd drive, i was told that westwood would send me an unopened copy of the game, which i could then return. I probably had to send them the opened copy of the game first.
It's the artist's decision to make
No its not. There is no god given right to make money by being a muscian. If no one wants to pay, then you either a) find another job and/or b) continue b/c you enjoy doing it.
I like programming, but it is not my right to earn any kind of living from doing it. If something came along (AI programs for us, or some such thing), then i guess i'dhave to find another job wouldn't i?
Or spend 20 and get turbo tax, and answer its simple questions.
(don't start with the "I shouldn't have to pay for it" crap, you want free? you get spam!).
I do pay jackass. My email comes with my internet connection.
Should i pay EXTRA to block telemarketer calls? I don't think so, and i dont' think i should have to pay not to be bothered. It is after all a right i have.
Um i think i have a right to say 'No, you cannot snail mail me' and 'no you cannot call me.' So why don't i have the right to say 'no you cannot email me.' Its not censorship if the audience does not want to hear what you have to say. Yes they have a right to speech, but that doesn't mean they can call me if i do not wish to listen.
Censorship requires a 3rd party between the person 'giving' the speech and the person 'receiving' it.
Since you need food to live,and you have the right to live, i would say that you have the right to eat. Meaning that the food would have to be affordable.