...wouldn't intentionally tanking the stock of a company via unsubstantiated rumor be criminal?
It better not be. It's up to the actual traders to verify unsubstantiated statements such as this before taking any action. Restrictions on speech have already gone way too far.
Only this lifeboat had no "women and children" in it. This was no lifeboat. It's a helicopter to rescue the captain after he ran the tanker into an iceberg.
Mexico has no law to protect free speech as well as the American's 1st amendment is supposed to. Mexico also has "no reeleccion"(please, help me with the accents, etc...). It hasn't diminished the corruption one bit. Not that I mind. Eternal summer kinda makes up for it.
Similarly, your right to speak ends where it begins to infringe on my right to make a free and uninfluenced choice in exercising my franchise.
No way. Like too many others, you fail to differentiate between speech and action. Makes for a very difficult argument. If you cannot control your actions, then you alone have a serious problem. Otherwise I can go marching around claiming "the devil made me do it". And you would have to accept the Nuremberg defense in a war crimes trial. Or you have to accept that we don't have a free will. That we are very complex talking chimps, nothing more. Try to note that I'm am not forcing you to listen. You have every right to plug your ears and tune out. But that's as far as your rights go as it pertains to restricting speech. Just like your "fist/nose" analogy.
1) Doesn't matter. Restricting speech always diminishes the process. 2) Yes 3) Absolutely. Would you favor the imprisonment of a whistle blower that uses classified info to uncover illegal or otherwise harmful activity? And "fighting words"? Please!. What a bunch of hillbilly crap. Libel? Again, it's the listener's responsibility to verify anything before he acts. The person who acts on false information is the one to punish.
And no, I didn't call you an authoritarian. Only that you are using their points to infringe on rights specifically spelled out in the amendment. So I ask you and all the others, What part of no law don't you understand?
Those are all well worn and quite tiresome authoritarian talking points, and are a violation of individual rights. And they are an assault on the concept of free will(Do we have it? Or not?). Hold the actor responsible and leave the speaker the hell alone.
Also, voters wearing paraphernalia, caps, t-shirts and stickers, for candidates to the voting precinct, the board of elections said if poll workers see it, they will throw people out.
Replace "network and bandwidth management controls" with information control. It's about assuring that only "authorized"information is transmitted anywhere. Kinda like the way the government uses the emergency broadcasting system for TV and radio.
Reforms?! What reforms? We're still in Iraq. We still have the patriot act. The telcos got their immunity. And Bush is still in office. And the new guy, either of the two we left ourselves, won't change anything. If we were even half vigilant, the entire party, both sides, would be out in the streets, squeegeeing your windshields.
Which would also include any privacy provisions. Heh, offshore datahavens will also have no protection against pirates, possibly hired by a certain government or two.
Why Afghanistan? Got some proof that they're behind it that we haven't seen? Or are we to believe the government's conspiracy theory? How do you know it wasn't domestic? Could've been some wacko Tim McVeigh groupies or Branch Davidians. You know that some people were still trying to pin OKC on a foreign threat?
Maybe, possibly you might get some privacy if you can randomly change your public IP address a few thousand times a second in some "spread spectrum" type fashion. But for now, real privacy on the net is but a pipe dream.
Slashdot Mirror
...wouldn't intentionally tanking the stock of a company via unsubstantiated rumor be criminal?
It better not be. It's up to the actual traders to verify unsubstantiated statements such as this before taking any action. Restrictions on speech have already gone way too far.
The Democrats got it passed, the Republicans opposed.
And a republican signed...
Having said all this, I doubt you read even the title of the bill if you are seriously for it.
I did. It's called the "Paul Wellstone Mental Health and Addiction Equity Act of 2007" Who can be against that? :-/
something named, "The Protection of Children Act.."
Close...
Only this lifeboat had no "women and children" in it. This was no lifeboat. It's a helicopter to rescue the captain after he ran the tanker into an iceberg.
Mexico has no law to protect free speech as well as the American's 1st amendment is supposed to. Mexico also has "no reeleccion"(please, help me with the accents, etc...). It hasn't diminished the corruption one bit. Not that I mind. Eternal summer kinda makes up for it.
Similarly, your right to speak ends where it begins to infringe on my right to make a free and uninfluenced choice in exercising my franchise.
No way. Like too many others, you fail to differentiate between speech and action. Makes for a very difficult argument. If you cannot control your actions, then you alone have a serious problem. Otherwise I can go marching around claiming "the devil made me do it". And you would have to accept the Nuremberg defense in a war crimes trial. Or you have to accept that we don't have a free will. That we are very complex talking chimps, nothing more. Try to note that I'm am not forcing you to listen. You have every right to plug your ears and tune out. But that's as far as your rights go as it pertains to restricting speech. Just like your "fist/nose" analogy.
1) Doesn't matter. Restricting speech always diminishes the process.
2) Yes
3) Absolutely. Would you favor the imprisonment of a whistle blower that uses classified info to uncover illegal or otherwise harmful activity? And "fighting words"? Please!. What a bunch of hillbilly crap. Libel? Again, it's the listener's responsibility to verify anything before he acts. The person who acts on false information is the one to punish.
And no, I didn't call you an authoritarian. Only that you are using their points to infringe on rights specifically spelled out in the amendment. So I ask you and all the others, What part of no law don't you understand?
Those are all well worn and quite tiresome authoritarian talking points, and are a violation of individual rights. And they are an assault on the concept of free will(Do we have it? Or not?). Hold the actor responsible and leave the speaker the hell alone.
I'm not surprised either, just pissed that somebody who is willing to give up their rights can vote mine away also.
to polarize the electorate.
C'mon people now,
Smile on your brother
Ev'rybody get together
Try and love one another right now...
Also, voters wearing paraphernalia, caps, t-shirts and stickers, for candidates to the voting precinct, the board of elections said if poll workers see it, they will throw people out.
I guess these places are not free speech zones.
Paper ballots?
BitTorrent: because fuck you, Hollywood!
Hollywood: because fuck you, BitTorrent
I fought the law...
Reminds me of a funny interview I heard with Ringo Starr a long time ago:
"What did you do with the money?"
"What money?"
"The money your mother gave you for singing lessons."
...you stupid fucking idiot...moron
You called?
Yeah! You go girl... Don't let them beat you down just because they're right.
...it's just that people get so caught up in the fact that the company is big that they fail to realize they have the company by its balls.
"...So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains
And we never even know we have the key..."
with a protesting mobile phone?
Depends...
Replace "network and bandwidth management controls" with information control. It's about assuring that only "authorized"information is transmitted anywhere. Kinda like the way the government uses the emergency broadcasting system for TV and radio.
This is only a test...
Reforms?! What reforms? We're still in Iraq. We still have the patriot act. The telcos got their immunity. And Bush is still in office. And the new guy, either of the two we left ourselves, won't change anything. If we were even half vigilant, the entire party, both sides, would be out in the streets, squeegeeing your windshields.
Well, absent any real cross examination of the info and its source, I believe I'll hang on to my doubts.
...after all who's going to object?
Liberian Navy to the rescue!
Which would also include any privacy provisions. Heh, offshore datahavens will also have no protection against pirates, possibly hired by a certain government or two.
Why Afghanistan? Got some proof that they're behind it that we haven't seen? Or are we to believe the government's conspiracy theory? How do you know it wasn't domestic? Could've been some wacko Tim McVeigh groupies or Branch Davidians. You know that some people were still trying to pin OKC on a foreign threat?
HAHAHA... That's-a-funny...
Maybe, possibly you might get some privacy if you can randomly change your public IP address a few thousand times a second in some "spread spectrum" type fashion. But for now, real privacy on the net is but a pipe dream.