Depends on how limited it is. I, for example, agree with slander and libel laws. Personal liberty is harmed when someone is legally entitled to slander you.
Why would anyone trust the government to do anything? Why, for example, do we trust them to police the country? Because alternatives have historically been worse.
I don't agree with the free speech zones. I don't think they are terribly similar to limited speech prior to elections, because they differ vastly in terms of likely abuses.
But at least these are valid points to discuss and debate.
The whole "fire in a movie theater" thing is entirely irrelevant.
There is good discussion to be had on whether limiting political speech or paid for speech leading up to an election is good or bad in balance. But thus discussion is so far from useful it's not even amusing.
The point is that some kinds of speech can incite panic and if done for nefarious purposes should be legally limited because the benefit of such a limit outweighs the harm.
Claiming that the people who panicked would be at fault is ridiculous: suppose someone yelled "Sarin!" in a room full of biochemists... They would be RIGHT in assuming they were in immediate mortal danger.
This is just a silly argument. For it to make sense shouting fire in a theater would have to be morally equivalent to making political speeches the day before an election.
They are not. The format immediately endangers life and limb of many others. The later might influence an election.
And I actually agree that a limit on political speech immediately prior to an election could be beneficial.
I'm a very strong advocate of free speech and personal liberty.
I can still see a case to be made for a limitation on "political" speech immediately leading up to a vote. It would have to be of very limited scope. But there could be great benefit. Some of the abuses mentioned here would be prevented: e.g. not giving a candidate time to respond, rallying near polling stations to prevent voters, etc.
There ARE other beneficial limitations on speech. On their merits they tend to provide more pros than cons.
Indeed, this would be less a limit on speech, but more a limit on WHEN such speech is allowed - and in a fair and balanced way.
States, by definition, have a monopoly on the legal use of violence. Issuing a lawsuit is not necessarily lawful. Lastly, apart from being completely wrong, your post was completely irrelevant to the subject of gp: whether legal or otherwise, the first to attack is the aggressor.
Yeah maybe another 50 years and 3 billion dollars and we'll have something almost as useful as other existing technologies. Microwaves are absorbed by water. Additional research isn't needed.
While it's true that a cost benefit analysis is useful, the cost of being wrong is hard to measure the further out you try to project. It's possible that the increase in temperature will cause an acceleration in warming. If that goes on unchecked the world may become uninhabitable much sooner than expected. How would you value that cost?
The ability to short increases market efficiency. It does so by facilitating risk mitigation. Increased efficiency benefits the whole market, and reduces the cost to trade and invest, and results in more investment overall.
Slashdot Mirror
I couldn't agree more.
"news" in this country is a mix of entertainment, propaganda and control.
We're not as free as we think we are.
Depends on how limited it is.
I, for example, agree with slander and libel laws.
Personal liberty is harmed when someone is legally entitled to slander you.
Why would anyone trust the government to do anything? Why, for example, do we trust them to police the country? Because alternatives have historically been worse.
I don't agree with the free speech zones. I don't think they are terribly similar to limited speech prior to elections, because they differ vastly in terms of likely abuses.
But at least these are valid points to discuss and debate.
The whole "fire in a movie theater" thing is entirely irrelevant.
If there's cost and no benefit, mere logic dictates that there is an overall benefit to the limit.
In any of those cases someone could be lying... and there may not be time to counter the lie before the election.
I'm not saying that limiting speech in this way is necessarily the answer. I am saying that it's worth serious discussion.
And the discussion this far has been pointless bickering.
+1
This whole thread has devolved.
There is good discussion to be had on whether limiting political speech or paid for speech leading up to an election is good or bad in balance. But thus discussion is so far from useful it's not even amusing.
I know: welcome to Slashdot.
I agree that some limits on free speech can, and maybe have been, abused.
But serious question: what benefit is there from allowing someone's to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater?
Would it make a difference if it were an operating room during open heart surgery, where the patient would certainly die if the doctors leave?
That argument it stupid.
The point is that some kinds of speech can incite panic and if done for nefarious purposes should be legally limited because the benefit of such a limit outweighs the harm.
Claiming that the people who panicked would be at fault is ridiculous: suppose someone yelled "Sarin!" in a room full of biochemists... They would be RIGHT in assuming they were in immediate mortal danger.
What's the BENEFIT from protecting such speech?
This is just a silly argument. For it to make sense shouting fire in a theater would have to be morally equivalent to making political speeches the day before an election.
They are not. The format immediately endangers life and limb of many others. The later might influence an election.
And I actually agree that a limit on political speech immediately prior to an election could be beneficial.
I'm a very strong advocate of free speech and personal liberty.
I can still see a case to be made for a limitation on "political" speech immediately leading up to a vote. It would have to be of very limited scope. But there could be great benefit. Some of the abuses mentioned here would be prevented: e.g. not giving a candidate time to respond, rallying near polling stations to prevent voters, etc.
There ARE other beneficial limitations on speech. On their merits they tend to provide more pros than cons.
Indeed, this would be less a limit on speech, but more a limit on WHEN such speech is allowed - and in a fair and balanced way.
Shhhh... Don't give US parties any more bad ideas!
In my opinion, Fox News is primarily a GOP propaganda machine, and secondarily a business.
Is it really difficult to sue for slander or libel (honest question)?
Which part of testing hypotheses and drawing conclusions isn't science?
Don't worry about it: market forces will naturally push the price up.
Even the US government can't make more available than exists.
So by your logic if someone assaults you, you would shield yourself as best as possible, but you wouldn't retaliate?
Most rational humans would consider retaliation "self defense" - in both cases.
States, by definition, have a monopoly on the legal use of violence.
Issuing a lawsuit is not necessarily lawful.
Lastly, apart from being completely wrong, your post was completely irrelevant to the subject of gp: whether legal or otherwise, the first to attack is the aggressor.
Nope. That was in your head. There isn't any way a rational person could read my comment as a comparison between Apple products and a mainframe.
Yeah maybe another 50 years and 3 billion dollars and we'll have something almost as useful as other existing technologies.
Microwaves are absorbed by water. Additional research isn't needed.
But it's not better.
After 50 years of research they've developed a weapon that's useless in moist air.
What was I comparing?
Gave it up? http://m.engadget.com/2010/09/06/ibm-claims-worlds-fastest-processor-with-5-2ghz-z196/
Also, porting has much more to do with APIs than instruction set.
While it's true that a cost benefit analysis is useful, the cost of being wrong is hard to measure the further out you try to project.
It's possible that the increase in temperature will cause an acceleration in warming. If that goes on unchecked the world may become uninhabitable much sooner than expected. How would you value that cost?
He made a statement so now he has to stand by it - to the point of absurdity.
Scientist: Father, I keep running this experiment, but the results don't match our expectation.
Priest: Have faith.
OMG there are some bits - the code might misinterpret them as a URL, load the destination and execute it!
WTF seriously???
The ability to short increases market efficiency. It does so by facilitating risk mitigation. Increased efficiency benefits the whole market, and reduces the cost to trade and invest, and results in more investment overall.