Should publishing the names/addresses of informants be free speech, too?
What about anti-abortionists publishing lists of the addresses of doctors who perform abortions. Some of those doctors have died, but it wasn't the publishers who did it. Should they be let off with a warning?
I believe in the curbing of that instance of the defamer's freedom of expression in that case for the purpose of defending that person against that slander.
So you believe "freedom of expression" isn't an absolute right? We're starting to chip away at the veneer. I bet I can come up with a dozen other examples, too.
Whatever... "freedom of expression" isn't a defense for what the founders of The Pirate Bay were doing. Freedom of expression means they have a right to think that copyright law is wrong, that they have a right to go around saying that copyright law is wrong, but not to actually break copyright law.
TPB scored a win for transparency. They lost their case, but forced EHCR to publicly make that bizarre statement to justify it.
Why is it 'bizarre'? By your definition, defamation laws must be unthinkable. Also shouting "bomb!" in crowded places, etc.. Very weird that anybody would see that as a bad thing, right?
Let me put it this way. If your bank put up your encyrpted bank details for people to download at will, then the key/password gets compromised, would you go "Oh, my bank did nothing wrong and shouldn't receive any criticism, it was that nasty XxDeEpburNxX!"?
If XxDeEpburNxX openly publishes the key then blames the bank for leaking the data I might have a problem with XxDeEpburNxX's credibility, yes.
And it wasn't WikiLeaks who published the unedited cables. Wikileaks was careful to redact the ones they published.
You might want to check facts before speaking, although around here that's obviously not a requirement for an "Informative" rated post. I read a LOT of those cables, and frankly speaking most of them were boring drivel that didn't have anything to do with any wars at all, and didn't reveal any kind of criminal activity.
(I assume there's an interactive one because it says "many of the iconic sound effects used in our doodle were kindly provided by the creative folks behind this show"...)
This is one of the things which isn't mentioned when the topic of global warming comes up. GW is going to benefit some parts of the world. There will be some winners and some losers. Sure, it's going to suck in Florida and Arizona, but the northern states are going to start sucking less. Canadians, as well, will have much more fun with two, full weeks of Summer.
The trees in some parts of the world will have a good time, yes.
For humans, the global economy will have a bigger effect on their standard of living. Which way do you think the economy will go when the waves start lapping at the foot of the skyscrapers?
Slashdot Mirror
I always thought they did it on a rolling road where none of that would make any difference.
Should publishing the names/addresses of informants be free speech, too?
What about anti-abortionists publishing lists of the addresses of doctors who perform abortions. Some of those doctors have died, but it wasn't the publishers who did it. Should they be let off with a warning?
Speech should never be punished by criminal law. THAT is freedom of speech.
What about maliciously yelling "bomb!" in a crowded place and people dying in the panic? Should that be covered by civil law?
Borrowing it from his friend and downloading it is exactly the same.
Only if you make sure that nobody else in the entire world is watching the "borrowed" copy at the same time as you are.
You do check that before watching, right?
I believe in the curbing of that instance of the defamer's freedom of expression in that case for the purpose of defending that person against that slander.
So you believe "freedom of expression" isn't an absolute right? We're starting to chip away at the veneer. I bet I can come up with a dozen other examples, too.
Whatever ... "freedom of expression" isn't a defense for what the founders of The Pirate Bay were doing. Freedom of expression means they have a right to think that copyright law is wrong, that they have a right to go around saying that copyright law is wrong, but not to actually break copyright law.
Whoa man, where are your citations? Wikipedia is not a source.
That page is editable if you feel you can correct it in any way.
What do I win, Bob?
Only a second whack with the clue-stick: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech
What about defamation laws, etc.? What are your feelings on those?
TPB scored a win for transparency. They lost their case, but forced EHCR to publicly make that bizarre statement to justify it.
Why is it 'bizarre'? By your definition, defamation laws must be unthinkable. Also shouting "bomb!" in crowded places, etc.. Very weird that anybody would see that as a bad thing, right?
That's just the thing, they were not counterfeiting, they were linking to people who were.
Even if they were, that's not what "freedom of expression" is about.
You really need to find out what "freedom of speech" is before opening your mouth.
I don't think any of you understand what "free speech" is.
Clue: It's not the right to say anything, anywhere. It certainly isn't the right to give a Hollywood movie to somebody else.
Homo Sapiens seems quite "stupid and brutish" most of the time. Just saying.
"Page 3" has become an expression over there ...
PS: The site you want is: http://www.page3.com/
Tchaikovsky used cannons in his percussion section. Beat that, Beethoven.
Where's some new material? Who composes orchestral music today?
Some movie soundtracks are quite good, eg. Gladiator.
Let me put it this way. If your bank put up your encyrpted bank details for people to download at will, then the key/password gets compromised, would you go "Oh, my bank did nothing wrong and shouldn't receive any criticism, it was that nasty XxDeEpburNxX!"?
If XxDeEpburNxX openly publishes the key then blames the bank for leaking the data I might have a problem with XxDeEpburNxX's credibility, yes.
And it wasn't WikiLeaks who published the unedited cables. Wikileaks was careful to redact the ones they published.
You might want to check facts before speaking, although around here that's obviously not a requirement for an "Informative" rated post. I read a LOT of those cables, and frankly speaking most of them were boring drivel that didn't have anything to do with any wars at all, and didn't reveal any kind of criminal activity.
Do you know what redacting is...?
And it wasn't WikiLeaks who published the unedited cables. Wikileaks was careful to redact the ones they published.
It was a Guardian Newspaper journalist who published the secret decryption key to the 'insurance' file and gave everybody access.
Uh, did you know google is different depending on where you access it from ?
That one's not interactive.
(I assume there's an interactive one because it says "many of the iconic sound effects used in our doodle were kindly provided by the creative folks behind this show"...)
Does anybody have a link to it? I can't see it.
PS: No, it's not here: http://www.google.com/doodles/finder/2013/All%20doodles
You think it's going to start spinning faster?
This is one of the things which isn't mentioned when the topic of global warming comes up. GW is going to benefit some parts of the world. There will be some winners and some losers. Sure, it's going to suck in Florida and Arizona, but the northern states are going to start sucking less. Canadians, as well, will have much more fun with two, full weeks of Summer.
The trees in some parts of the world will have a good time, yes.
For humans, the global economy will have a bigger effect on their standard of living. Which way do you think the economy will go when the waves start lapping at the foot of the skyscrapers?
We also know that warming isn't spontaneous, as the deniers seem to infer.
Temperatures go up/down because of atmospheric composition, not because "it was warmer before".
Clue: The only real source of heat around here is the Sun.