Wow... you missed his point so hard that your lack of comprehension created a singularity in the space-time continuum that now threatens to cause the universe to fold in upon itself...
I'd take that description a step further and say "what happens when people can truly say what's on their mind without fear of retribution." Unfortunately, a lot of people don't like what other people say when they speak without fear of retribution and will go to great lengths to silence them.
Well, now I lean more Republican than Democrat myself (and more Libertarian than either), but you're crazy if you think that free speech is safer with the Republicans than the Democrats. The Democrats have their hate speech and the Republicans have their obscenity and the only reason we still have a first amendment is because they can't agree on why it should be repealed.
anyone who actually contends that the Fairness Doctrine targeted conservative viewpoints is so mindnumbingly correct that it defies belief that anybody who can't see that has the opposable thumbs to actually type a blog
Here's the chicken-and-the-egg problem I see with this... it's up to Flickr to decide what gets posted on their site, right? They own it, after all. Or, that is... they paid a registrar the $10/yr or whatever that it costs to register a domain name and a hosting company to host it - or they hosted it themselves, but paid an ISP to provide the upstream bandwidth... so, they "own" it right? Or... does the registrar own it? Or does the hosting company own it? Or does the upstream ISP own it? If the Dutch photographer in the story wanted to host his own "children smoking cigarettes" website and registered with "GoDaddy", GoDaddy might very well shut it down (like they did in another case in TFA). Or the upstream ISP might shut it down (like they did in another case in TFA). Who ultimately gets to decide what's inappropriate content, and who ultimately gets to decide what's actually OK?
I actually agree with letting Flickr remove whatever they want to remove (although in this case it was way stupid), but this starts to get a bit more complex than it seems when you start thinking about it.
Are you changing the subject or defending the obscenity laws? If you're trying to defend the law, non sequitir from hell, dude. You're suggesting that we should lock up people who walk around naked because otherwise they'd freeze to death.
I suspect that the prospect of criminal investigation puts many people off
Yep. Why do so few people (even here in tinfoil-hat-land) support Freenet? Because if everybody could actually really communicate anonymously, then they actually would communicate anonymously. And at the end of the day, it's a small minority of people that really believe we have that right (or even that it would be a Good Thing).
Slashdot Mirror
That also happened in 20th century. I dare him to try that again today.
That's a mighty big assumption you have there...
Sir, you're being sensible, rational and logical. On this topic that is not allowed. Please report to the nearest re-education camp at once.
"Apoplectic" - wow, you taught me a new word... I think. I looked it up on dictionary.com and found this helpful entry:
But I think I figured out what it means anyway. Thanks for the extra vocabulary!
Wow... you missed his point so hard that your lack of comprehension created a singularity in the space-time continuum that now threatens to cause the universe to fold in upon itself...
I'd take that description a step further and say "what happens when people can truly say what's on their mind without fear of retribution." Unfortunately, a lot of people don't like what other people say when they speak without fear of retribution and will go to great lengths to silence them.
I don't know... as much as I agree with the actual decision, it sends a chill down my spine to hear the FCC start defining the "internet rules".
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it was safe with the Democrats. I just meant that it wasn't safe with the Republicans, either.
Modded "-1, Republican", I see.
Wow - it looks like you were modded "-1, very good point".
Well, now I lean more Republican than Democrat myself (and more Libertarian than either), but you're crazy if you think that free speech is safer with the Republicans than the Democrats. The Democrats have their hate speech and the Republicans have their obscenity and the only reason we still have a first amendment is because they can't agree on why it should be repealed.
I see you've been modded "-1, has a point".
anyone who actually contends that the Fairness Doctrine targeted conservative viewpoints is so mindnumbingly correct that it defies belief that anybody who can't see that has the opposable thumbs to actually type a blog
There, fixed that for you.
I dunno... alternatively, would you really put McCain on a ticket you wanted to win?
Exactly... creating a whole branch of unelected, unaccountable censors.
Here's the chicken-and-the-egg problem I see with this... it's up to Flickr to decide what gets posted on their site, right? They own it, after all. Or, that is... they paid a registrar the $10/yr or whatever that it costs to register a domain name and a hosting company to host it - or they hosted it themselves, but paid an ISP to provide the upstream bandwidth... so, they "own" it right? Or... does the registrar own it? Or does the hosting company own it? Or does the upstream ISP own it? If the Dutch photographer in the story wanted to host his own "children smoking cigarettes" website and registered with "GoDaddy", GoDaddy might very well shut it down (like they did in another case in TFA). Or the upstream ISP might shut it down (like they did in another case in TFA). Who ultimately gets to decide what's inappropriate content, and who ultimately gets to decide what's actually OK?
I actually agree with letting Flickr remove whatever they want to remove (although in this case it was way stupid), but this starts to get a bit more complex than it seems when you start thinking about it.
What!? Now, that's just crazy talk, there! You're going over the deep end, man!
Speak for yourself!
Hey! I'm over here!
Bah - just goes to show what we get for not being specific. We meant for it to be mandatory, not just legal.
Are you changing the subject or defending the obscenity laws? If you're trying to defend the law, non sequitir from hell, dude. You're suggesting that we should lock up people who walk around naked because otherwise they'd freeze to death.
And therefore we should lock up all the people whose brains don't start yelling that when they're in front of a camera? Logic not holding up here...
Yep. Why do so few people (even here in tinfoil-hat-land) support Freenet? Because if everybody could actually really communicate anonymously, then they actually would communicate anonymously. And at the end of the day, it's a small minority of people that really believe we have that right (or even that it would be a Good Thing).
Only on slashdot would a positive reference to Linus Torvalds be moderated tr- um, no, wait a minute... um, wait, where am I?
And if you'd all keep your mouths shut, it would stay that way!