And that was pretty much where I was trying to steer the discussion. There is no right place to draw the line. Criticizing others for drawing it elsewhere than you based on some principle of objective truth is never going to get you anywhere. It is not a simple matter and it can not be argued in simple terms. It is trade-offs piled on trade-offs.
Now, for the record, I agree that simple promotion of genocide should not be illegal, for the reason that forbidding something gives it strength in the eyes of those who already disagree with you. You show fear and weakness by banning discussion. But I can just as well argue the opposite case just to make a point.
PS: Your liability model does not really work either, because you end up with all kinds of cases like where your speech has unintended consequences.
Well, how do you define what is and what isn't a political topic? Lots of people consider things that are "objectively incorrect beliefs about simple and easily verifiable facts" to be political.
My poltical belief is that this theatre is on fire. Therefore, I will yell "FIRE!" to make people aware of it. Why is my political belief not worth protecting, while the political belief that all niggers need to die is?
Probably around the time the editors grew up enough to overcome their sexual insecurities and realized they didn't need to compensate by using a penis enlarger computer any longer.
I wouldn't say that some websites are necessarily badly designed, it's just that there was a specific target demographic that web developers have aimed for when they were designing their websites.
No, they are badly designed. There is no excuse for relying on mouseover effects in website design, even on desktop computers. Any HCI expert will tell you this. Making links invisible until you hover over them has always been and will always be wrong.
So it's wrong to yell "fire" because there is a law that covers yelling "fire", but it is OK to call for genocide because there is no law that forbids it?
Since you won't, I'll look it up in the dictionary for you:
crime n.
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.
Considering they're already public, and have been for decades, I think that's proof enough that any worry over this is far overrated.
They most definitely are nothing of the kind. Some details of the basic design are public, but those are very, very far from being actual instructions, and are only a tiny first step on the road to developing the actual weapons. Try again, this time considering easily reproducible instructions and all the necessary data.
Could I publish a book with the questioned content...
How about personal information? Your medical records, credit card numbers, details of your everyday life?
Advocating genocide is somehow a death threat but it is to vague to constitute a crime,
That's pretty subjective. Lots of people would disagree with that claim, and enough do that it is considered a crime in Sweden. Since it is a crime, then by your argument it is not a limitation on freedom of speech, yes?
Slashdot Mirror
Bigger screen for video.
Ah yes, the good old Slashdot principle that if you don't have any actual wrongdoing of Microsoft's to point out, you can just make some shit up.
No, it's a crime if it is against the law. This isn't hard to understand unless you are being intentionally daft.
And that was pretty much where I was trying to steer the discussion. There is no right place to draw the line. Criticizing others for drawing it elsewhere than you based on some principle of objective truth is never going to get you anywhere. It is not a simple matter and it can not be argued in simple terms. It is trade-offs piled on trade-offs.
Now, for the record, I agree that simple promotion of genocide should not be illegal, for the reason that forbidding something gives it strength in the eyes of those who already disagree with you. You show fear and weakness by banning discussion. But I can just as well argue the opposite case just to make a point.
PS: Your liability model does not really work either, because you end up with all kinds of cases like where your speech has unintended consequences.
By having the power to enforce it.
Well, how do you define what is and what isn't a political topic? Lots of people consider things that are "objectively incorrect beliefs about simple and easily verifiable facts" to be political.
My poltical belief is that this theatre is on fire. Therefore, I will yell "FIRE!" to make people aware of it. Why is my political belief not worth protecting, while the political belief that all niggers need to die is?
Unfortunately, you do not have the authority to create a law. If you had - say, if you were some kind of ancient king - you would be right, however.
Sorry, most of the rest of us are capable of multi-tasking, and don't need to compensate for lack of brain capacity by maximizing windows.
Probably around the time the editors grew up enough to overcome their sexual insecurities and realized they didn't need to compensate by using a penis enlarger computer any longer.
It's probably because there is no "blithering idiot" moderation option.
Perhaps the solution is to get rid of this habit of obsessively resizing windows.
I wouldn't say that some websites are necessarily badly designed, it's just that there was a specific target demographic that web developers have aimed for when they were designing their websites.
No, they are badly designed. There is no excuse for relying on mouseover effects in website design, even on desktop computers. Any HCI expert will tell you this. Making links invisible until you hover over them has always been and will always be wrong.
On of my favourite changes when I moved from Windows to OS X was getting rid of the goddamn resizing borders.
You did not.
So it's wrong to yell "fire" because there is a law that covers yelling "fire", but it is OK to call for genocide because there is no law that forbids it?
There is a law that forbids it in Sweden, though.
Since you won't, I'll look it up in the dictionary for you:
crime
n.
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.
You are confusing laws and morals. Consult a dictionary for further information.
Are you trying to argue that the law does not define what a crime is?
Considering they're already public, and have been for decades, I think that's proof enough that any worry over this is far overrated.
They most definitely are nothing of the kind. Some details of the basic design are public, but those are very, very far from being actual instructions, and are only a tiny first step on the road to developing the actual weapons. Try again, this time considering easily reproducible instructions and all the necessary data.
Could I publish a book with the questioned content...
How about personal information? Your medical records, credit card numbers, details of your everyday life?
Not only is that irrelevant, but if you think genocide is a "political position", you have issues.
Advocating genocide is somehow a death threat but it is to vague to constitute a crime,
That's pretty subjective. Lots of people would disagree with that claim, and enough do that it is considered a crime in Sweden. Since it is a crime, then by your argument it is not a limitation on freedom of speech, yes?
Then use some other MPEG-4 player.
A hundred years is a blink of the eye to the universe.
Yes, you're getting it now.
Do you run a website providing content paid for by a national TV license?