The proposed rulemaking will do no such thing. It explicitly leaves hobbyists alone, as mandated by congress. It only applies to commercial users. People using their 3-pound quadcopter to get some YouTube video of the fire near their house aren't the people that the FAA's new rules will impact.
one of which I think was a surveyor of some kind, but the others were clearly just some nosy fucking assholes
Is everyone who drives a car past your property also a nosy fucking asshole? What information do you have that the people flying those aircraft gave a rats ass about your property or you or your activities? Please be specific.
Some people fly remote control aircraft just for the fun of flying - just like people who fly hot air balloons, ultralights, hang gliders, parachutes, and more. To say nothing of the Cessnas and Beechcraft and other machines that have probably flown over your property many time over the years. Either you need to relax a bit and realize that You're Not That Interesting... or you need to get a LOT more worked up and paranoid than you already are, because there are probably people near you - RIGHT NOW! - holding cameras that can remotely send pictures of what you're doing to cloud storage that's not completely secure from government intrusion and Chinese hacking. You are worried about all the people around you all day, who could be spying on you with their smartphones, right? No? I see.
And what's the most common counter-argument? That the moment an artist creates something, it's part of the shared culture and the artist has zero claim over its use. Which is worse - a system that allows someone who spends a lifetime creating something of value to still have control over that as part of the career and estate that she's built... or a system where essentially every creative professional is chased out of that line of work and into flipping burgers because millions of idiots feel entitled to free entertainment from their music, prose, and film slaves?
Right. That's a false dichotomy. But it has to err on the side of defending the rights of the people who actually create things, not the leeches who want to rip things off in the name of free entertainment.
Well, all you have to do is come up with an enbiggened disincentivicationism to counterproduce the linguinistical resultifacts that meet your desirenessifity.
And who gets to decide that someone has been "ripped off"?
It's really not that complicated. When an artist creates something, and offers it to the market on certain terms, people who take it anyway without actually honoring those terms are ripping it off. It's as simple as that. If you don't like the terms under which someone's creative work is being offered, just walk away. If you say instead, "That's nice, Mr. Filmmaker/Recording Artist/Author, I really admire your creativity and appreciate the thousands of hours you've put into creating the entertainment I want... but I don't respect you enough to agree to your terms, so I'm just going to take what I want and screw you... but please, keep making more of what I like!"... then you know exactly who is doing the ripping off.
Pretending you can't get that is you being completely disingenuous, and you know it.
Music labels rip the artists off, but you are calling for music labels to be respected in their dealings. It seems you are slightly confused as to what roles artists and labels play.
Are you talking about actual fraud and breech of contract? If so, artists have all sorts of recourse to recover not only something that's been fraudulently taken from them, but to recover punitive damages, as well.
Or are you talking about artists who sign an ill-considered contract because they've chosen poorly in their selection of business partners, and couldn't be bothered to get some expert help to look over the contract? You're not being "ripped off" when you choose to enter into an agreement.
but if it doesn't make that back in 14 years, is it ever going to?
A lot of franchise-oriented work these days takes longer than 14 years to even wrap up, as a series/format. There's no reason that someone deciding to risk tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and untold thousands of man-hours on a project that they hope will launch another Potter/Star Wars/Trek/Marvel/Whatever franchise wouldn't be thinking in terms of the work still paying back that risk for fifteen, or twenty years. And why shouldn't they? Playing long ball with creative franchises is perfectly reasonable, if you can get your investors to look at it that way, too.
Because if the breathless crap being fretted about were actually to come to pass, it would be a huge pain in the ass to everyone who actually creates things for a living.
If you don't register a work you can never receive monetary damages from infringers, only an injunction.
No. If you don't have the work registered, you can only go for the injunction, and for your customary rates/invoicing on the work in question. What having the work registered does is allow you to take the infringement case to federal court, and to seek punitive damages.
Yeah, it sucks to get hated for encouraging clear communication in public, doesn't it? Probably not as much as it sucks to be you, when that's all you've got, above. What a shallow, pathetic existence. But hey, if hating someone is your only outlet, and that's the limit to your ability to express yourself, I guess it's good to know your limits.
It's not my responsibility to see that anybody gets paid.
But it IS your responsibility to not rip people off, or to tolerate other people doing so. Especially if you personally like the output of artists, writers, musicians, filmmakers, and others who - without copyrights on their creations - wouldn't bother to create what you like.
Aggravating suggests that the frustration builds up over time
So what you're saying is that you, just like the headline writer, don't actually understand what the word means.
It seems to me that you decided to complain about something that you were unfamiliar with.
No, I complained that the word was used incorrectly, and that an editor chose to do so in a headline - the most visible place here in which to do so.
Here's the primary definition of Aggravate:
verb (used with object), aggravated, aggravating.
1. to make worse or more severe; intensify, as anything evil, disorderly, or troublesome:
to aggravate a grievance; to aggravate an illness.
People with a working vocabulary have been making the distinction between an irritation and an aggravated irritation for a long time. As in, "The child scratched at the irritating wound, which aggravated the injury."
The only way in which it makes sense to use "aggravating" in the context of a certification test (as in the OP), is to say something like, "He was in a bad mood from his morning car accident, and the annoyance of having to take a pointless certification test aggravated his already foul disposition."
The only person unfamiliar with this long-standing use and construction is you. Paid editors running headlines on widely read web sites, though, should be ahead of you on this - and they weren't in this case. Simple as that.
Imagine a nation-wide referendum asking voters if music copyright law should be retained.
Which is exactly why referendum votes are usually such a terrible idea. Because most people lack the information and critical thinking skills to vote wisely. The same people you think would sweep away copyright laws would then be wondering why nobody is making them any movies beyond the generally crappy garage-level indie dreck that can scrape up some family and gofundme me cash. They'd wonder why their favorite musicians would be charging $400 for a concert ticket, and no longer laboring to make complex recordings that involve months of work, dozens of studio musicians and the like. They'd wonder why their favorite authors would stop writing books that involve the investment of years of their lives... because they're too busy trying to pay their bills doing paid short story readings at Barnes & Noble. Of course B&N would be out of business, so that wouldn't actually happen.
"Paid for the law?" The concept has been in place since the founding of the country, because the people who chartered the nation recognized the essential role that copyrights play in protecting a vital area of work. Because most voters couldn't even tell you what the Bill of Rights is, don't lecture about how meaningful a simple referendum would be, in this regard.
So your plan for fixing copyright is to rip off the artists you pretend to like. That's one rock-solid set of philosophical premises you're working with there.
There should be a certification in the use of the English language. Like, maybe a high school diploma or something like that.
Getting a certification may indeed be annoying, or irritating, or bothersome, or troubling, or tiring... and then something else about the process might aggravate (make worse) the bad experience. Sure, it's fairly obvious that the headline writer is trying to say something other than that a bad thing was aggravated by something else... but, can we at least, when editing the headlines, at least try to throw the darts at a group of words that actually make some contextual sense? This is right up there with the "certifications are ten times less useful" style phrasing. Just EDIT like you mean it, editors. Please? Why dumb things down when you don't have to? None of these words are on sale. It's not more profitable for Dice to hold off on using seemingly more expensive words like "irritating."
Ah, I see. So it's not quite the way YOU like, so that's your excuse for ripping off whatever you want. You're what... 12? 14? Definitely spoken like someone who's never created anything in your life.
A guy tries to run a startup, the startup has crushed for various reasons, then there is the question of lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars in supposed damages to music labels. No foul play...
Really? That's your approach to this? Yet another young guy trying to find a way to get rich by setting up a system built from the ground up to infringe on others' copyrights, and which gave laughable lip service to take-down notices (ripped off material that was removed re-appeared more or less instantly). Foul play? The foul play was on his part, and of course the chickens came home to roost, which is why he gave up on the scheme. Whether or how yet another failure of a Piracy-As-A-Service "start-up" might have contributed to his death remains to be seen.
So, please detail what's illegal about anything being discussed. The article doesn't talk about them going after you or your network. This is about providing tools to those that need tools. Your complaint, if it becomes legitimate, is only meaningful when someone who's not armed with a warrant or in the middle of conducting operations against (for example) a group like ISIS decides to use the technology outside of a legal context.
Your silly rhetorical question is like asking why the people who make very nice chef's knives aren't in jail for murder, because someone decided to use one illegally in order to kill somebody else.
Whatever philosophical point you hope to make is lost in the dust you kick up when you shout half-baked things in such a shrill manner. Should the people who run Glock be in jail because police are armed with their weapons and, despite using them every day to protect themselves and other people, one of them mis-uses a Glock-made weapon? Are you really listening to yourself?
Read another piece yesterday that mentioned the find in question here was of a very, very close cousin to the good ol' Velociraptor. The conclusion there was that the Velociraptor was likely feathered as well, and not likely to look much like the leather/scaley beasts from the movies (and, um, they weren't that big, either, apparently).
what gives your freedom to complain about him more validity than his freedom to complain about reddit?
Because I'm pointing out that he's being whiny and irrational in his complaint that Reddit isn't being "fair" in having an editorial policy related to how they run their own web site. His complaint: it's isn't right for people to be able to run their own web sites as they see fit. My complaint: that his complaint is without merit, and is in fact a symptom of a great deal of what's wrong with contemporary society, vis-a-vis the Gimme Dat lefty entitlement culture. See the difference? He thinks someone else should be force to do what he wants so he doesn't have to go to any trouble himself. I think he should admit that his complaint essentially calls for others to be forced to be his web publishing slave labor.
The reality is that reddit is free to ban whatever they want, and the rest of us are free to complain.
Right. Except the whiners are couching the discussion in terms of "free speech" being impact by Reddit's having an editorial policy. That gives it all away: the people who skew the discussion that way have absolutely no idea what freedom actually is.
They even claim nonwhites are only 3/5 of a person according to it.
So what you're saying is that you don't actually know what the constitution says.
Believing free speech only applies to the government is racist.
Wow, you've also got a profound reading comprehension problem to go with your inability to reason.
Free speech doesn't "apply" to the government (you idiot), the constitution's first amendment exists to protect your free speech FROM the government. The constitution is, as it should be, completely silent on what you personally should or shouldn't say on your own private web site or other publication.
Your pathetic attempt to somehow play the race card, in order to avoid being the slightest bit actually informed on the subject, shows how poorly your mind is working on this subject. You confuse protection from interference by the government with the exact opposite. You're pretending to confuse a matter that has nothing to do with race with being somehow racist, because you're too intellectually lazy to address the fact that you're uninformed and confused.
How? So, you've gone out and created your own web site where you can "progressive" yourself all day long on any topic you like... how are the people that run Reddit's private web site interfering with you running your own web site? Please be specific. If you don't provide clear evidence of how Reddit is preventing you from running your own web site as you see fit, then ask yourself what you really mean.
Never mind, I'll tell you what you REALLY want. You want other people to be your web site platform finance and operation slaves so that you don't have to go to the trouble and expense that OTHER people have gone to so you can have the same reach as people who've bothered. In other words, you're being exactly like a typical progressive/liberal: you think you are owed somebody else's time and work just because you exist. You're basically in favor of slavery, where someone else spends part of their daily waking hours to be forced to provide you with something expensive that you want, but aren't willing to build yourself. Classic.
Those of us that are adults understand this is a free speech issue.
No, you mean that those of you who are immature and feeling entitled to someone else's work and resources are pretending that someone else not being in the mood to spend their own time and money in the manner that you stamp your feet and insist they should... is the same as the government actually interfering with your speech. You have the entire issue 100% backwards. Of course you know this, and you're just trying to wrap your demand for slave labor in rhetoric that you hope other equally wrong-headed people will mistake for being virtuous.
So, please explain how Reddit's storm troopers have shut down your web site. Ready for the details when you're ready to exhibit a little intellectual honesty.
Why is this tagged "freespeech" ? It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, as the site in question is privately run. Nothing that Reddit is proposing/doing prevents anyone else from saying what they will on their own web site. The notion of free speech revolves around the constitution's requirement that the government (not counting cases of actually illegal stuff, as mentioned above) can't step in an tell Reddit how to set their editorial policies. Hiding a fat shaming forum? Reddit is free to do so, and nobody's freedom to go out and talk all they want about fat people in their own or some other venue. Having the government ban fat shaming content? Then we'd be talking about a free speech issue.
In other words, you think that your personal freedom is found in forcing other people to provide you with a platform to say what you want to say. At least, it seems that way, since you can't bring yourself to actually address the substantive particulars. Which is typical of people who are asked to reconcile what they're complaining about with the actual principles involved.
Slashdot Mirror
The proposed rulemaking will do no such thing. It explicitly leaves hobbyists alone, as mandated by congress. It only applies to commercial users. People using their 3-pound quadcopter to get some YouTube video of the fire near their house aren't the people that the FAA's new rules will impact.
one of which I think was a surveyor of some kind, but the others were clearly just some nosy fucking assholes
Is everyone who drives a car past your property also a nosy fucking asshole? What information do you have that the people flying those aircraft gave a rats ass about your property or you or your activities? Please be specific.
... or you need to get a LOT more worked up and paranoid than you already are, because there are probably people near you - RIGHT NOW! - holding cameras that can remotely send pictures of what you're doing to cloud storage that's not completely secure from government intrusion and Chinese hacking. You are worried about all the people around you all day, who could be spying on you with their smartphones, right? No? I see.
Some people fly remote control aircraft just for the fun of flying - just like people who fly hot air balloons, ultralights, hang gliders, parachutes, and more. To say nothing of the Cessnas and Beechcraft and other machines that have probably flown over your property many time over the years. Either you need to relax a bit and realize that You're Not That Interesting
And what's the most common counter-argument? That the moment an artist creates something, it's part of the shared culture and the artist has zero claim over its use. Which is worse - a system that allows someone who spends a lifetime creating something of value to still have control over that as part of the career and estate that she's built ... or a system where essentially every creative professional is chased out of that line of work and into flipping burgers because millions of idiots feel entitled to free entertainment from their music, prose, and film slaves?
Right. That's a false dichotomy. But it has to err on the side of defending the rights of the people who actually create things, not the leeches who want to rip things off in the name of free entertainment.
Well, all you have to do is come up with an enbiggened disincentivicationism to counterproduce the linguinistical resultifacts that meet your desirenessifity.
And who gets to decide that someone has been "ripped off"?
It's really not that complicated. When an artist creates something, and offers it to the market on certain terms, people who take it anyway without actually honoring those terms are ripping it off. It's as simple as that. If you don't like the terms under which someone's creative work is being offered, just walk away. If you say instead, "That's nice, Mr. Filmmaker/Recording Artist/Author, I really admire your creativity and appreciate the thousands of hours you've put into creating the entertainment I want ... but I don't respect you enough to agree to your terms, so I'm just going to take what I want and screw you... but please, keep making more of what I like!" ... then you know exactly who is doing the ripping off.
Pretending you can't get that is you being completely disingenuous, and you know it.
Music labels rip the artists off, but you are calling for music labels to be respected in their dealings. It seems you are slightly confused as to what roles artists and labels play.
Are you talking about actual fraud and breech of contract? If so, artists have all sorts of recourse to recover not only something that's been fraudulently taken from them, but to recover punitive damages, as well.
Or are you talking about artists who sign an ill-considered contract because they've chosen poorly in their selection of business partners, and couldn't be bothered to get some expert help to look over the contract? You're not being "ripped off" when you choose to enter into an agreement.
Then why should it get a benefit of a monopoly rent and free government support at the expense of free expression?
For the same reason that you get it, when it comes to your own works.
but if it doesn't make that back in 14 years, is it ever going to?
A lot of franchise-oriented work these days takes longer than 14 years to even wrap up, as a series/format. There's no reason that someone deciding to risk tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and untold thousands of man-hours on a project that they hope will launch another Potter/Star Wars/Trek/Marvel/Whatever franchise wouldn't be thinking in terms of the work still paying back that risk for fifteen, or twenty years. And why shouldn't they? Playing long ball with creative franchises is perfectly reasonable, if you can get your investors to look at it that way, too.
Why 'thankfully'?
Because if the breathless crap being fretted about were actually to come to pass, it would be a huge pain in the ass to everyone who actually creates things for a living.
If you don't register a work you can never receive monetary damages from infringers, only an injunction.
No. If you don't have the work registered, you can only go for the injunction, and for your customary rates/invoicing on the work in question. What having the work registered does is allow you to take the infringement case to federal court, and to seek punitive damages.
Yeah, it sucks to get hated for encouraging clear communication in public, doesn't it? Probably not as much as it sucks to be you, when that's all you've got, above. What a shallow, pathetic existence. But hey, if hating someone is your only outlet, and that's the limit to your ability to express yourself, I guess it's good to know your limits.
It's not my responsibility to see that anybody gets paid.
But it IS your responsibility to not rip people off, or to tolerate other people doing so. Especially if you personally like the output of artists, writers, musicians, filmmakers, and others who - without copyrights on their creations - wouldn't bother to create what you like.
Aggravating suggests that the frustration builds up over time
So what you're saying is that you, just like the headline writer, don't actually understand what the word means.
It seems to me that you decided to complain about something that you were unfamiliar with.
No, I complained that the word was used incorrectly, and that an editor chose to do so in a headline - the most visible place here in which to do so.
Here's the primary definition of Aggravate:
verb (used with object), aggravated, aggravating. 1. to make worse or more severe; intensify, as anything evil, disorderly, or troublesome: to aggravate a grievance; to aggravate an illness.
People with a working vocabulary have been making the distinction between an irritation and an aggravated irritation for a long time. As in, "The child scratched at the irritating wound, which aggravated the injury."
The only way in which it makes sense to use "aggravating" in the context of a certification test (as in the OP), is to say something like, "He was in a bad mood from his morning car accident, and the annoyance of having to take a pointless certification test aggravated his already foul disposition."
The only person unfamiliar with this long-standing use and construction is you. Paid editors running headlines on widely read web sites, though, should be ahead of you on this - and they weren't in this case. Simple as that.
Imagine a nation-wide referendum asking voters if music copyright law should be retained.
Which is exactly why referendum votes are usually such a terrible idea. Because most people lack the information and critical thinking skills to vote wisely. The same people you think would sweep away copyright laws would then be wondering why nobody is making them any movies beyond the generally crappy garage-level indie dreck that can scrape up some family and gofundme me cash. They'd wonder why their favorite musicians would be charging $400 for a concert ticket, and no longer laboring to make complex recordings that involve months of work, dozens of studio musicians and the like. They'd wonder why their favorite authors would stop writing books that involve the investment of years of their lives ... because they're too busy trying to pay their bills doing paid short story readings at Barnes & Noble. Of course B&N would be out of business, so that wouldn't actually happen.
"Paid for the law?" The concept has been in place since the founding of the country, because the people who chartered the nation recognized the essential role that copyrights play in protecting a vital area of work. Because most voters couldn't even tell you what the Bill of Rights is, don't lecture about how meaningful a simple referendum would be, in this regard.
So your plan for fixing copyright is to rip off the artists you pretend to like. That's one rock-solid set of philosophical premises you're working with there.
There should be a certification in the use of the English language. Like, maybe a high school diploma or something like that.
... and then something else about the process might aggravate (make worse) the bad experience. Sure, it's fairly obvious that the headline writer is trying to say something other than that a bad thing was aggravated by something else ... but, can we at least, when editing the headlines, at least try to throw the darts at a group of words that actually make some contextual sense? This is right up there with the "certifications are ten times less useful" style phrasing. Just EDIT like you mean it, editors. Please? Why dumb things down when you don't have to? None of these words are on sale. It's not more profitable for Dice to hold off on using seemingly more expensive words like "irritating."
Getting a certification may indeed be annoying, or irritating, or bothersome, or troubling, or tiring
Ah, I see. So it's not quite the way YOU like, so that's your excuse for ripping off whatever you want. You're what ... 12? 14? Definitely spoken like someone who's never created anything in your life.
A guy tries to run a startup, the startup has crushed for various reasons, then there is the question of lawsuits for hundreds of millions of dollars in supposed damages to music labels. No foul play...
Really? That's your approach to this? Yet another young guy trying to find a way to get rich by setting up a system built from the ground up to infringe on others' copyrights, and which gave laughable lip service to take-down notices (ripped off material that was removed re-appeared more or less instantly). Foul play? The foul play was on his part, and of course the chickens came home to roost, which is why he gave up on the scheme. Whether or how yet another failure of a Piracy-As-A-Service "start-up" might have contributed to his death remains to be seen.
So, please detail what's illegal about anything being discussed. The article doesn't talk about them going after you or your network. This is about providing tools to those that need tools. Your complaint, if it becomes legitimate, is only meaningful when someone who's not armed with a warrant or in the middle of conducting operations against (for example) a group like ISIS decides to use the technology outside of a legal context.
Your silly rhetorical question is like asking why the people who make very nice chef's knives aren't in jail for murder, because someone decided to use one illegally in order to kill somebody else.
Whatever philosophical point you hope to make is lost in the dust you kick up when you shout half-baked things in such a shrill manner. Should the people who run Glock be in jail because police are armed with their weapons and, despite using them every day to protect themselves and other people, one of them mis-uses a Glock-made weapon? Are you really listening to yourself?
Read another piece yesterday that mentioned the find in question here was of a very, very close cousin to the good ol' Velociraptor. The conclusion there was that the Velociraptor was likely feathered as well, and not likely to look much like the leather/scaley beasts from the movies (and, um, they weren't that big, either, apparently).
what gives your freedom to complain about him more validity than his freedom to complain about reddit?
Because I'm pointing out that he's being whiny and irrational in his complaint that Reddit isn't being "fair" in having an editorial policy related to how they run their own web site. His complaint: it's isn't right for people to be able to run their own web sites as they see fit. My complaint: that his complaint is without merit, and is in fact a symptom of a great deal of what's wrong with contemporary society, vis-a-vis the Gimme Dat lefty entitlement culture. See the difference? He thinks someone else should be force to do what he wants so he doesn't have to go to any trouble himself. I think he should admit that his complaint essentially calls for others to be forced to be his web publishing slave labor.
The reality is that reddit is free to ban whatever they want, and the rest of us are free to complain.
Right. Except the whiners are couching the discussion in terms of "free speech" being impact by Reddit's having an editorial policy. That gives it all away: the people who skew the discussion that way have absolutely no idea what freedom actually is.
They even claim nonwhites are only 3/5 of a person according to it.
So what you're saying is that you don't actually know what the constitution says.
Believing free speech only applies to the government is racist.
Wow, you've also got a profound reading comprehension problem to go with your inability to reason.
Free speech doesn't "apply" to the government (you idiot), the constitution's first amendment exists to protect your free speech FROM the government. The constitution is, as it should be, completely silent on what you personally should or shouldn't say on your own private web site or other publication.
Your pathetic attempt to somehow play the race card, in order to avoid being the slightest bit actually informed on the subject, shows how poorly your mind is working on this subject. You confuse protection from interference by the government with the exact opposite. You're pretending to confuse a matter that has nothing to do with race with being somehow racist, because you're too intellectually lazy to address the fact that you're uninformed and confused.
reddit is coming down hard on progressives.
How? So, you've gone out and created your own web site where you can "progressive" yourself all day long on any topic you like ... how are the people that run Reddit's private web site interfering with you running your own web site? Please be specific. If you don't provide clear evidence of how Reddit is preventing you from running your own web site as you see fit, then ask yourself what you really mean.
Never mind, I'll tell you what you REALLY want. You want other people to be your web site platform finance and operation slaves so that you don't have to go to the trouble and expense that OTHER people have gone to so you can have the same reach as people who've bothered. In other words, you're being exactly like a typical progressive/liberal: you think you are owed somebody else's time and work just because you exist. You're basically in favor of slavery, where someone else spends part of their daily waking hours to be forced to provide you with something expensive that you want, but aren't willing to build yourself. Classic.
Those of us that are adults understand this is a free speech issue.
No, you mean that those of you who are immature and feeling entitled to someone else's work and resources are pretending that someone else not being in the mood to spend their own time and money in the manner that you stamp your feet and insist they should ... is the same as the government actually interfering with your speech. You have the entire issue 100% backwards. Of course you know this, and you're just trying to wrap your demand for slave labor in rhetoric that you hope other equally wrong-headed people will mistake for being virtuous.
So, please explain how Reddit's storm troopers have shut down your web site. Ready for the details when you're ready to exhibit a little intellectual honesty.
Why is this tagged "freespeech" ? It has nothing to do with freedom of speech, as the site in question is privately run. Nothing that Reddit is proposing/doing prevents anyone else from saying what they will on their own web site. The notion of free speech revolves around the constitution's requirement that the government (not counting cases of actually illegal stuff, as mentioned above) can't step in an tell Reddit how to set their editorial policies. Hiding a fat shaming forum? Reddit is free to do so, and nobody's freedom to go out and talk all they want about fat people in their own or some other venue. Having the government ban fat shaming content? Then we'd be talking about a free speech issue.
In other words, you think that your personal freedom is found in forcing other people to provide you with a platform to say what you want to say. At least, it seems that way, since you can't bring yourself to actually address the substantive particulars. Which is typical of people who are asked to reconcile what they're complaining about with the actual principles involved.