The only people who have destroyed Cuba is the totalitarian communist family that runs it and who jail or kill people for trying to lead a free life or leave the island.
By principle, if this guy is released so should be Manning
Manning acted out of a juvenile sense of drama, and indiscriminantly stole hundreds of thousands of documents in a fit of pique over "being in a bad place" emotionally. He betrayed his fellow service members and knew that his drama queen routine was going to put many people at great risk so that he could be seen stamping his feet and saddling up to that ego maniac, Assange. How is that the same as setting up communications channels for individuals living under an oppressive totalitarian regime like Cuba's? It's not.
Manning and Crowley criticised the US government... Look what happened to them.
Manning indiscriminately sprewed hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents out the door in a fit of not liking the fact that he'd put himself - an angsty gay man - into a military job that really didn't suit his personality. The problem was that he didn't criticize the government, or use any of the many established mechanisms for pointing out specific acts or policies requiring wider whistleblower-style attention/coverage, and when straight for the personal drama (using the outlet set up by Assaange, who is also all about personal drama). He displayed the exact opposite of thoughtful, principled action. He had a tantrum.
Crowley, who worked in an appointed position at the pleasure of the chief executive, decided to deliberately call his chief executive's policies "stupid" (and more) in a public setting, for the press, and of course lost his job. He worked for the country's diplomatic wing, and showed the inability to be diplomatic and to uphold the policy positions of the person who put him in that job. So of course someone else is now going to have that job. Are you really so morally bankrupt that you can't grasp the distinction between that and being thrown in a Cuban jail for fifteen years for helping people get on the internet? Yeah, I guess you are. I don't know how you even manage to choose which brand of toothpaste to use, considering you have a case of mixed premises that bad.
Well, as bad as the summary is, it did use the word "sued," not to be confused with "prosecuted." Crimes are prosecuted. Beefs between people ("He made me lose my job and ruined my reputation!") are the stuff of civil suits.
So no need for model release forms then? Since there's "nothing within the law" requiring their permission?
Model releases (which are individual documents waving privacy, and are individually negotiated and often have very different terms from one to the next) do not apply to editorial and personal use, or when an image is used as art for art's sake. They apply when the image is used commercially (say, I take a photo of you, and then use it in a Viagra ad, or to illustrate a fund-raising press release for my non-profit, implying your endorsement of my cause, etc).
The case in question has nothing to do with model or property releases as used in stock photography or commercial licensing.
Oh, please, in the US copyright is used all the time to prevent unwanted speech all the time.
When you speak/write/compose/etc, you own the copyrights to your words. Unless of course you're just regurgitating what someone else said, and not meeting the actual legal standards of fair use in order to be safe from infringment claims. Or, of course, unless you're writing/speaking as part of a job/contract in which you've agreed that the copyrights on what you're communicating are owned by the person who's paying you. But in general, "unwanted" speech can't be controlled by some third party copyright holder unless you're infringing as you publish whatever it is you're communicating. You may also be confusing - as so many do - libel law, patent law, and trademark issues with copyrights.
I agree with your suggestion that Flickr should take down more material, and thus show more consistency in the application of their policies to what goes on regularly. Staff that post infringing material should be fired.
And the selection criteria is: the infringing posts were very high profile. It rises to the level of being noticed by not just a few people following some guy's Flickr stream, but by possibly very large numbers of people.
It isn't about weighing the odds of being sued in a particular case of infringment. It's about knowing that highly visible, talked-about, and linked-to material on their site is ripped off, and that the person putting it there lied. It makes it a lot harder for them to stick to their guns about licensing models for their millions of other users if they are seen as being capricious on the subject.
Which makes Flickr a really lame place to showcase that info, doesn't it? Where's Wikileaks on this? They should be scrambling to offer a place to host such images, since they are dedicated to ignoring things like copyrights... whereas Flickr must honor them, or lose everything. I suppose we'd see more action on it from Wikileaks (or at least public pleas from them to have someone provide them with the material) if there was a better US-bashing angle to it.
Previously if you were caught writing such a message on the walls , you would have to erase it and then were suspended for 10 days for the action
You can't possibly be so obtuse as to not recognize the difference between something on a wall that a small number of people might see, and which can be removed, vs. an online posting that can take on a life of its own and become essentially permanent in a venue accessed by billions of people.
So, you've got a kid lying, saying that an adult licensed to teach and professionally tending to the education and safety of children is mentally ill. This leaves a stain on that person's reputation in their field, and could make it difficult for their career. Or, perhaps the teacher actually is bipolar, but has it well under control through medication, and you've got a kid spreading private medical information online, in an attempt to damage that person. Either way, you're dealing with a kid that has decided it's within his rights to deliberately and publicly try to damage the reputation of a person who makes a living working with kids. The kid was expelled for exhibiting real malice, and showing the willingness to act on it, publicly, to hurt somebody's career. Good riddance.
Tell you what. I will buy you one, if you promise to stop using "never mind" as one word. Or, you can promise to always use the new word "alwaypayattentionto" as its antonym. But I think the first choice is better.
You're skipping over the moral relativism part. Just because the Crown's law was what it was doesn't make it right. The colonies were rebeling against the very nature of the government and laws to which they were subjected, as well they should have. If they'd been unable to prevail militarily, then, sure, they'd have lost. But that wouldn't have changed the morally bankrupt nature of the government running their lives. Whether or not the British (had they won) would have considered the colonists traitors is beside the point, since the colonists stopped recognizing British authority over them... on the grounds that the British government was by its nature unsuited to serve free people.
That's not mythologizing,... that was the entire point of the revolution!
The colonists rebelled against a monarchy that was denying them the liberties that became the foundation of the new country's constitutional framework. People living in the country now, who violently promote, say, a society based on Sharia law (which is inconsistent with those liberties) aren't fighting for the same thing as those colonists two centuries ago. They are promoting an objectively inferior social contract, and it's right to prevent that effort when the attempts become violent. And even more so when they are aligned with foreign actors that have vowed the end of the coutry and the culture that lives there.
Regardless, it's the violent ones that are in question, here. The country is full of people spouting off all sorts of nonsense and promoting everything from neo-Nazism to pan-global-Caliphates or just good old anarchy. And they get to keep right on doing so as long as they aren't trying to hurt people.
Strange, your user account number doesn't look like a brand new one. And you probably missed the similarly credentialed thread, earlier, about life from space.
Slashdot Mirror
Before Castro, there was the american mafia.
So you're saying that the mafia was acting as an agent of US government policy?
the kangaroo courts that try 'terrorist' inmates
You don't actually know what that phrase means, do you?
after destroying them
The only people who have destroyed Cuba is the totalitarian communist family that runs it and who jail or kill people for trying to lead a free life or leave the island.
By principle, if this guy is released so should be Manning
Manning acted out of a juvenile sense of drama, and indiscriminantly stole hundreds of thousands of documents in a fit of pique over "being in a bad place" emotionally. He betrayed his fellow service members and knew that his drama queen routine was going to put many people at great risk so that he could be seen stamping his feet and saddling up to that ego maniac, Assange. How is that the same as setting up communications channels for individuals living under an oppressive totalitarian regime like Cuba's? It's not.
Manning and Crowley criticised the US government ... Look what happened to them.
Manning indiscriminately sprewed hundreds of thousands of sensitive documents out the door in a fit of not liking the fact that he'd put himself - an angsty gay man - into a military job that really didn't suit his personality. The problem was that he didn't criticize the government, or use any of the many established mechanisms for pointing out specific acts or policies requiring wider whistleblower-style attention/coverage, and when straight for the personal drama (using the outlet set up by Assaange, who is also all about personal drama). He displayed the exact opposite of thoughtful, principled action. He had a tantrum.
Crowley, who worked in an appointed position at the pleasure of the chief executive, decided to deliberately call his chief executive's policies "stupid" (and more) in a public setting, for the press, and of course lost his job. He worked for the country's diplomatic wing, and showed the inability to be diplomatic and to uphold the policy positions of the person who put him in that job. So of course someone else is now going to have that job. Are you really so morally bankrupt that you can't grasp the distinction between that and being thrown in a Cuban jail for fifteen years for helping people get on the internet? Yeah, I guess you are. I don't know how you even manage to choose which brand of toothpaste to use, considering you have a case of mixed premises that bad.
Well, as bad as the summary is, it did use the word "sued," not to be confused with "prosecuted." Crimes are prosecuted. Beefs between people ("He made me lose my job and ruined my reputation!") are the stuff of civil suits.
So no need for model release forms then? Since there's "nothing within the law" requiring their permission?
Model releases (which are individual documents waving privacy, and are individually negotiated and often have very different terms from one to the next) do not apply to editorial and personal use, or when an image is used as art for art's sake. They apply when the image is used commercially (say, I take a photo of you, and then use it in a Viagra ad, or to illustrate a fund-raising press release for my non-profit, implying your endorsement of my cause, etc).
The case in question has nothing to do with model or property releases as used in stock photography or commercial licensing.
Oh, please, in the US copyright is used all the time to prevent unwanted speech all the time.
When you speak/write/compose/etc, you own the copyrights to your words. Unless of course you're just regurgitating what someone else said, and not meeting the actual legal standards of fair use in order to be safe from infringment claims. Or, of course, unless you're writing/speaking as part of a job/contract in which you've agreed that the copyrights on what you're communicating are owned by the person who's paying you. But in general, "unwanted" speech can't be controlled by some third party copyright holder unless you're infringing as you publish whatever it is you're communicating. You may also be confusing - as so many do - libel law, patent law, and trademark issues with copyrights.
I agree with your suggestion that Flickr should take down more material, and thus show more consistency in the application of their policies to what goes on regularly. Staff that post infringing material should be fired.
As TFA points out, this is selective enforcement
And the selection criteria is: the infringing posts were very high profile. It rises to the level of being noticed by not just a few people following some guy's Flickr stream, but by possibly very large numbers of people.
It isn't about weighing the odds of being sued in a particular case of infringment. It's about knowing that highly visible, talked-about, and linked-to material on their site is ripped off, and that the person putting it there lied. It makes it a lot harder for them to stick to their guns about licensing models for their millions of other users if they are seen as being capricious on the subject.
Which makes Flickr a really lame place to showcase that info, doesn't it? Where's Wikileaks on this? They should be scrambling to offer a place to host such images, since they are dedicated to ignoring things like copyrights ... whereas Flickr must honor them, or lose everything. I suppose we'd see more action on it from Wikileaks (or at least public pleas from them to have someone provide them with the material) if there was a better US-bashing angle to it.
Yes.
Right. So we'll just stick with it being malicious BS meant to permanently harm the person's career.
Previously if you were caught writing such a message on the walls , you would have to erase it and then were suspended for 10 days for the action
You can't possibly be so obtuse as to not recognize the difference between something on a wall that a small number of people might see, and which can be removed, vs. an online posting that can take on a life of its own and become essentially permanent in a venue accessed by billions of people.
So, you've got a kid lying, saying that an adult licensed to teach and professionally tending to the education and safety of children is mentally ill. This leaves a stain on that person's reputation in their field, and could make it difficult for their career. Or, perhaps the teacher actually is bipolar, but has it well under control through medication, and you've got a kid spreading private medical information online, in an attempt to damage that person. Either way, you're dealing with a kid that has decided it's within his rights to deliberately and publicly try to damage the reputation of a person who makes a living working with kids. The kid was expelled for exhibiting real malice, and showing the willingness to act on it, publicly, to hurt somebody's career. Good riddance.
Tell you what. I will buy you one, if you promise to stop using "never mind" as one word. Or, you can promise to always use the new word "alwaypayattentionto" as its antonym. But I think the first choice is better.
You're skipping over the moral relativism part. Just because the Crown's law was what it was doesn't make it right. The colonies were rebeling against the very nature of the government and laws to which they were subjected, as well they should have. If they'd been unable to prevail militarily, then, sure, they'd have lost. But that wouldn't have changed the morally bankrupt nature of the government running their lives. Whether or not the British (had they won) would have considered the colonists traitors is beside the point, since the colonists stopped recognizing British authority over them ... on the grounds that the British government was by its nature unsuited to serve free people.
,... that was the entire point of the revolution!
That's not mythologizing
a country founded on rebellion and treason
Ah, good ol' moral relativism!
The colonists rebelled against a monarchy that was denying them the liberties that became the foundation of the new country's constitutional framework. People living in the country now, who violently promote, say, a society based on Sharia law (which is inconsistent with those liberties) aren't fighting for the same thing as those colonists two centuries ago. They are promoting an objectively inferior social contract, and it's right to prevent that effort when the attempts become violent. And even more so when they are aligned with foreign actors that have vowed the end of the coutry and the culture that lives there.
Regardless, it's the violent ones that are in question, here. The country is full of people spouting off all sorts of nonsense and promoting everything from neo-Nazism to pan-global-Caliphates or just good old anarchy. And they get to keep right on doing so as long as they aren't trying to hurt people.
And so the Canadian government will just divide the money evenly between all musicians, everywhere? You do understand how absurd that is, right?
I see. So if the voters choose to elect a different majority in a state legislature, the police will just kill the voters?
So, you just use "Gitmo" as a generic term for "prosecuted?"
No, that would require a working government.
What's your point? That still requires people who vote with that in mind.
And if you lose, you end up in Gitmo.
Which rebellious US citizen, caught here in the US attempting to overthrow the US government, has found themselves in Gitmo? Please be specific.
Is this what Slashdot has come to? :(
Strange, your user account number doesn't look like a brand new one. And you probably missed the similarly credentialed thread, earlier, about life from space.