It is not the fault of the person that the cops acted the way they did. If that is true, then we must accept that charlie hebdo is responsible for the deaths it caused with its free speech.
It's a double standard.
Free speech. If the indirect consequences matter, then we should be holding charlie hebdo responsible for getting several people killed.
You cannot have it both ways.
What would happen? We all watch the media struggle to pronounce Betelgeuse.
"Scientists are reporting that Behtehlgoose has supernova'd. we go live now to the director of the astrology to see how this will effect our love lives."
So, about all those illegal types of pornography. If we've already established that someone being hurt does not disqualify it, this ruling would open the doors quite wide for all sorts of fetishes to be made legal.
Oh, right, it's only wrong when eastern societies censor things.
Rich people can afford the fines. Poor people cannot. So a rich person can speed and drink with impunity and get away with it as they always do. If you're too stupid to grasp that then maybe you shouldn't be on the internet.
So the only possible alternative is to penalize people for being poor and making bad choices resulting from that? It's right and good to have a punishment be a slap on the wrist to one person and destitution for another based on nothing but their circumstances in life?
Or have the punishment be dictated by your total net worth or income. Poor person speeds? they lose 10% of their total, rich person speeds? same figure, much greater amount.
It's just foolish to have a single monetary fine in a society with such great gaps between rich and poor.
Like all traffic penalties, this only hurts low income people. $150 a month will push someone right back into the bottle, it won't even register to a rich kid.
But we're a democracy, so we only have ourselves to blame.
Slashdot Mirror
How much money did they waste to establish "People learn things"?
You're not making any sense. I expected more than just redditors on slashdot.
An inanimate object? Take some time to think of a cogent analogy.
Then i await the charges levied against charlie hebdo. But alas, the double standard of ideology cares not for justice.
It is not the fault of the person that the cops acted the way they did. If that is true, then we must accept that charlie hebdo is responsible for the deaths it caused with its free speech. It's a double standard.
Congress shall make no law abridging the right to free speech. Any law which does so is automatically void.
If people being hurt as an indirect result of a statement or expression is condemnable, what are the charges being levied against charlie hebdo?
Free speech. If the indirect consequences matter, then we should be holding charlie hebdo responsible for getting several people killed. You cannot have it both ways.
Electric cars pollute just as much, if not more. It's just moved farther away, to the coal power plant that powers it.
And in ten years those jobs will all be done by programs.
Nobody is going to pay for internet with the inherent latency of a signal travelling to high orbit and back.
What nonsense.
Well this'll solve the debt crisis.
Legally demonstrable Harm was inflicted in this case? What, the girls had their own business of selling their body and this cut into their profits?
Until it tries to uphold it.
What would happen? We all watch the media struggle to pronounce Betelgeuse. "Scientists are reporting that Behtehlgoose has supernova'd. we go live now to the director of the astrology to see how this will effect our love lives."
So, about all those illegal types of pornography. If we've already established that someone being hurt does not disqualify it, this ruling would open the doors quite wide for all sorts of fetishes to be made legal. Oh, right, it's only wrong when eastern societies censor things.
I guess free speech is only what a certain group of people say is okay.
What a load of shit. Holy crap, who has been lying to these kids their whole lives? That clunky thing, on a ship?
I guess because you are ignorant of the facts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
Rich people can afford the fines. Poor people cannot. So a rich person can speed and drink with impunity and get away with it as they always do. If you're too stupid to grasp that then maybe you shouldn't be on the internet.
So the only possible alternative is to penalize people for being poor and making bad choices resulting from that? It's right and good to have a punishment be a slap on the wrist to one person and destitution for another based on nothing but their circumstances in life?
Or have the punishment be dictated by your total net worth or income. Poor person speeds? they lose 10% of their total, rich person speeds? same figure, much greater amount. It's just foolish to have a single monetary fine in a society with such great gaps between rich and poor.
Like all traffic penalties, this only hurts low income people. $150 a month will push someone right back into the bottle, it won't even register to a rich kid. But we're a democracy, so we only have ourselves to blame.
Won't this just saturate the market? The easier it is to gain these skills, the less in demand they are.