There is no gray area here. There's nothing sacred about this "speech" that deserves to be protected
Says you, on a completely arbitrary basis. What's the standard for what deserves to be protected and what doesn't? Are we all supposed to just go ask you? I'm sure that the theoretical candidate or elected official Shivetya is talking about feels the same way about people who speak out against him. And he's certainly in a better position to arbitrarily decide that "there is no gray area here" and that "there's nothing sacred about this 'speech'" and that it "needs to be rooted out of society".
Actually, yes, freedom of speech DOES and always has meant freedom from consequences.
After all, if it doesn't, then what's the opposite? What is
"restricted speech" if free speech can mean anything from "you're
free to say it, but you may get fired for saying it" right up to,
"you're free to say it, but you may be executed by firing squad". Does "restricted speech"
mean going around and cutting out people's tongues and chopping off
their hands before they say something that
might be banned?
Where you're confused is thinking that we actually have or ever had free speech. We're (in America, at least) supposed to be free from governmental consequences, but even that comes with a load of (all stupid) exceptions.
If knives were useful, we'd be able to carry them on commercial flights.
If scissors were useful, we'd be able to carry them on commercial flights.
If heavy explosives were useful, we'd be able to carry them on commercial flights.
If liquids had the ability to quench your thirst, we'd be able to carry them on commercial flights.
If more than 3 ounces of toiletries were necessary to get ready in the morning, we'd be able to carry them on commercial flights.
If nail clippers could clip your nails, we'd be able to carry them on commercial flights.
My goodness - it's almost as if... whether you can carry something on a commercial flight or not has no bearing whatsoever on its utility outside the context of a commercial flight.
I've done some research, and it appears to be a form of watercooling, but for a person rather than a CPU. I've never overclocked myself to the point where I felt that I needed it, though.
Well, supposedly the police have to go to court to get permission here in the US. However, since there are no longer any penalties for not doing so, nor are there any penalties for the telecom companies, it's a moot point.
They can still see what/where you're connected to (IP & port are still sent in clear), just not the specifics of what you did while you were there. How about "apt-get install freenet"?
You do realize that you're Ned Flander's wife, running around waving your hands in the air, screaming "Won't somebody please think of the children?", right?
Nobody here wants kids to have access to porn. (Personally, I just don't care, one way or the other). Nobody here said that. Neither did the supreme court, with this ruling. What they did say was that this law is stupid. It creates a huge burden on adult sites and does nothing to "protect the children" anyway.
Well, yeah, but all of those people just died and *whammo* - it was over. Little Timmy is going to spend the rest of his life suffering the ongoing trauma he experienced when he saw Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" in 2004.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the person. You may be right in some cases, but not all. However, the legislative solution of throwing people IN JAIL for something that may or may not be harmful is a bit like using a cannon to swat a fly. Maybe you have a point (although I doubt it), but that still doesn't justify the severity of the law(s) on this subject.
Fail. The fact that somebody believes it is wrong doesn't make it wrong. A law can be wrong. Selling alcohol on a Sunday is illegal where I live. That doesn't make it wrong, except in the eyes of a SMALL number of puritanical a**holes. In fact, the law itself is the only wrong there.
I hope your not trying to say it's always the fathers fault no matter the situation
That's what the MSM says - when a woman (like Andrea Yates) drowns four children, somehow it ends up being the father's fault (he was too "domineering", you see...)
Well, I'm sorry to hear that, and not to be insensitive or anything, but... what exactly is your point and what relevance does it have to this discussion? The COPA wouldn't have helped you in any way, shape or form.
9/11 couldn't happen again -- stand up and look funny on a plane, and the other passengers will kill you.
Ah, but you're not thinking like a terrorist or a lawmaker. Of course, 9/11 will never happen again on a plane. But who knows where else it might happen? On a train? In a car? On a boat? In a mall? In a football stadium? In your own backyard? Obviously, we have no way of knowing where or when the next 9/11 will happen, so the only safe way to prevent it is to outlaw everything, all at once. I, for one, commend our elected and appointed representatives in their superb efforts to do exactly that.
Well, seeing as how the supreme court and 99% of the registered posters on Slashdot (whose opinion, IMHO, ought to be the standard for whether a law is really constitutional anyway) disagree with you, I'd have to say, yes, it is a constitutional violation.
Well... at least Heath *didn't* play a guy who was missing half of his face (and therefore half of his lips) but was somehow mystically able to pronounce "m"s, "p"s, and "b"s just like he did *before* his accident.
Because if I ever have a girl and I smell someone like you around her, I will beat the crap out of him.
So let's see... you're saying that you believe it's OK to beat the crap out of somebody because you believe he's thought about harming somebody else. But you just admitted that you thought about the same thing (that is, beating the crap out of somebody). So by your moral code, it's OK for somebody to beat the crap out of you, then?
Well, let's see here... by your admitted moral code, it's OK to hurt somebody if you believe that they've been thinking about hurting somebody else. But you just admitted you think about hurting people. So I guess it's ok for me or anybody else to hurt you in turn, then?
Yep, I've never been able to understand why people lose all their objectivity when s-e-x is involved... or, conversely, I don't understand why everybody else and I don't. I guess I must be the weird one...
And you'll go to jail for the rest of your life (which will be short once the other inmates find out what you're in for) if you're caught looking at any of those things.
Slashdot Mirror
Says you, on a completely arbitrary basis. What's the standard for what deserves to be protected and what doesn't? Are we all supposed to just go ask you? I'm sure that the theoretical candidate or elected official Shivetya is talking about feels the same way about people who speak out against him. And he's certainly in a better position to arbitrarily decide that "there is no gray area here" and that "there's nothing sacred about this 'speech'" and that it "needs to be rooted out of society".
...and a perfect example of how ridiculous libel law actually is. That's the point we're trying to make here.
Actually, yes, freedom of speech DOES and always has meant freedom from consequences. After all, if it doesn't, then what's the opposite? What is "restricted speech" if free speech can mean anything from "you're free to say it, but you may get fired for saying it" right up to, "you're free to say it, but you may be executed by firing squad". Does "restricted speech" mean going around and cutting out people's tongues and chopping off their hands before they say something that might be banned?
Where you're confused is thinking that we actually have or ever had free speech. We're (in America, at least) supposed to be free from governmental consequences, but even that comes with a load of (all stupid) exceptions.
Yes, let's test his logic here:
My goodness - it's almost as if... whether you can carry something on a commercial flight or not has no bearing whatsoever on its utility outside the context of a commercial flight.
Necrophiliac.
I've done some research, and it appears to be a form of watercooling, but for a person rather than a CPU. I've never overclocked myself to the point where I felt that I needed it, though.
Well, supposedly the police have to go to court to get permission here in the US. However, since there are no longer any penalties for not doing so, nor are there any penalties for the telecom companies, it's a moot point.
Wow - that site certainly does present a surprising amount of stupidity. On the part of the adminstrator, that is...
Well, at least until September 2001, when they relocated much further west.
They can still see what/where you're connected to (IP & port are still sent in clear), just not the specifics of what you did while you were there. How about "apt-get install freenet"?
You do realize that you're Ned Flander's wife, running around waving your hands in the air, screaming "Won't somebody please think of the children?", right?
Nobody here wants kids to have access to porn. (Personally, I just don't care, one way or the other). Nobody here said that. Neither did the supreme court, with this ruling. What they did say was that this law is stupid. It creates a huge burden on adult sites and does nothing to "protect the children" anyway.
Well, yeah, but all of those people just died and *whammo* - it was over. Little Timmy is going to spend the rest of his life suffering the ongoing trauma he experienced when he saw Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" in 2004.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the person. You may be right in some cases, but not all. However, the legislative solution of throwing people IN JAIL for something that may or may not be harmful is a bit like using a cannon to swat a fly. Maybe you have a point (although I doubt it), but that still doesn't justify the severity of the law(s) on this subject.
Fail. The fact that somebody believes it is wrong doesn't make it wrong. A law can be wrong. Selling alcohol on a Sunday is illegal where I live. That doesn't make it wrong, except in the eyes of a SMALL number of puritanical a**holes. In fact, the law itself is the only wrong there.
That's what the MSM says - when a woman (like Andrea Yates) drowns four children, somehow it ends up being the father's fault (he was too "domineering", you see...)
Well, I'm sorry to hear that, and not to be insensitive or anything, but... what exactly is your point and what relevance does it have to this discussion? The COPA wouldn't have helped you in any way, shape or form.
Ah, but you're not thinking like a terrorist or a lawmaker. Of course, 9/11 will never happen again on a plane. But who knows where else it might happen? On a train? In a car? On a boat? In a mall? In a football stadium? In your own backyard? Obviously, we have no way of knowing where or when the next 9/11 will happen, so the only safe way to prevent it is to outlaw everything, all at once. I, for one, commend our elected and appointed representatives in their superb efforts to do exactly that.
Well, seeing as how the supreme court and 99% of the registered posters on Slashdot (whose opinion, IMHO, ought to be the standard for whether a law is really constitutional anyway) disagree with you, I'd have to say, yes, it is a constitutional violation.
Well... at least Heath *didn't* play a guy who was missing half of his face (and therefore half of his lips) but was somehow mystically able to pronounce "m"s, "p"s, and "b"s just like he did *before* his accident.
In the name of protecting the children? Just watch.
So let's see... you're saying that you believe it's OK to beat the crap out of somebody because you believe he's thought about harming somebody else. But you just admitted that you thought about the same thing (that is, beating the crap out of somebody). So by your moral code, it's OK for somebody to beat the crap out of you, then?
Well, let's see here... by your admitted moral code, it's OK to hurt somebody if you believe that they've been thinking about hurting somebody else. But you just admitted you think about hurting people. So I guess it's ok for me or anybody else to hurt you in turn, then?
Yep, I've never been able to understand why people lose all their objectivity when s-e-x is involved... or, conversely, I don't understand why everybody else and I don't. I guess I must be the weird one...
And you'll go to jail for the rest of your life (which will be short once the other inmates find out what you're in for) if you're caught looking at any of those things.
In fact, I distinctly recall (I wish I'd saved the link) discussions about Freenet here on Slashdot like: