It would also be no different than the museum in NYC that has many human bodies on display in different stages of "being mutilated".....in the name of science that is
There's a world of difference. I presume you're talking about the "BODIES: The exhibition" display?
The BODIES museum: 1) uses bodies which are donated to science, through a conscious decision by the owner of the body; 2) Has an actual educational purpose which specifically requires the use of human bodies and organs - to teach about human anatomy.
The Catcopter: 1) Takes somebody's pet, or a feral animal that was killed "somehow"; and 2) turns it into a fucking RC toy.
There is no "educational value" to using a body in this way. If the BODIES museum strapped jetpacks on the corpses and launched them around New York and called it "art," then you might be right that there's "no difference." But since one has an educational purpose that is actually served by the use of donor bodies, and one is a toy where the use of the body is simply intended to be "cute" "funny" or "provocative," I'd say anybody who can't see a pretty clear difference between the two should probably spend a little quiet time reflecting on what intrinsic flaw they possess that makes them incapable of seeing a difference.
The mere existence of a filter has a chilling effect on certain kinds of content. That's censorship.
Is it really "chilling" anything, though? The filter they're talking about is purely opt-in: "if you wish to have these images not show up in little Johnny's wikipedia searches, click Enable." I don't see Google's "safe search" option exercising a noticeable chilling effect on the upload of pornographic material to the web, though the change in results is quite noticeable for many searches just by changing the safe search setting.
If that's the extent of the "filtering," I'm struggling to think of any reason why that would create a "chilling" effect on people uploading to Wikipedia. You haven't changed anything, except maybe a few images/video/etc. would get tagged "adult" or "filterable" or whatever, and thus omitted from a certain subset of search results, but still readily available for the people who haven't opted in to the filtering.
I wouldn't enable the filter for myself, though I might enable it for a child if they were going to have any 'unsupervised' computer time where they're clicking around on the web. Things like broad DMCA takedowns and obscenity laws can have chilling effects, but there doesn't seem to be any call for government sanction associated with this filter - just a convenient way for users to say "I'd prefer not to see that." I'm not sure that meets any threshold for producing "chilling" effects.
Oh hell no, keep the government out of how I raise my children
Context is key, friend. I'm not saying that "Any busybody on the street can sic the police on you because you spoke sharply to your child and 'hurt their self esteem.'"
I'm saying that, barring evidence that shows measurable harm being done to the children *as a result of their parents being involved in a polygamous relationship,* there is no reason to suppose that the government should be involved in any way in the relationship and lifestyle those adults choose. In much the same way that the government has no business telling you whether or not you can take away your kid's Elmo doll as a punishment, but society can and should have a role in telling you that you can't beat the shit out of your children for no apparent reason, or lock them in a closet for 3 weeks at a time with a loaf of bread and a gallon of water.
This is specific to the question about polygamy; We can discuss the role and extent of government protection for children - in any context they are born & raised - but that's really a separate question from whether or not being raised in a polygamous household is somehow harmful to children, and would warrant prohibition of polygamy as a specific protective measure. If there's no evidence supporting the assertion that it's harmful, polygamy should be a matter left to consenting adults, just like "regular" marriage, and just like "gay" marriage.
To the extent that polygamy: 1) Is consensual behavior among adults; 2) Does not produce evidence showing harm to the children born into such an arrangement, which would warrant a social intervention to remedy that harm;
Then why should the government care? They simply have no business telling two or more consenting adults how they should choose to live their lives, provided those choices aren't damaging others. I know a group of (lovely, adult) people involved in a polyamorous relationship - their relationship doesn't harm me or my more-traditional one-woman relationship choices any more than their decision to pain their house gray harms me, or detracts from my choice to paint my house tan.
If it's three or 4 consenting adults all deciding to live in some sort of communal / polyamorous relationship, I'm sure the contracts would be a fucking nightmare to work out to everyone's agreement, but if all of the people agree, why shouldn't they be allowed to live as they choose? The government should only be involved if there is specific damage being done to someone as a result of this relationship.
A libertarian take on gay marriage is that the government has no business regulating any consensual interaction between two people, and that government shouldn't be in the business of regulating or normalizing marriage - be it between two men, two women, or a man and a woman.
As far as the government is concerned, it should be no different from any other contract between two consenting adults - draw up the contract if you wish, get your lawyers to review & approve it, and as far as the government is concerned, that should be all that's necessary.
The government should also not attempt to regulate private organizations: for instance, by demanding that the Catholic Church "marry" two gay people, or by demanding that the Episcopalian Church excommunicate gay couples. It is simply not the government's business. The government exists to enforce any sort of "civil union" contract two people draw up and enter into freely; It should not be in the business of telling people who they may love and who they may not, and it should not be in the business of forcing private organizations to do something against their conscience - be it "officiating" over gay marriages, or "denying" gay marriages.
Or did you think libertarians were against gay marriage?
For somebody who's "read them all," how exactly did you miss the press release summarizing today's judgement, as well as the judgement itself, which details this information?
Have you just been re-reading Joce640k's AOL News link that he's been spamming all over this article, and assuming that's the only information available?
Okay, I'll bite, since I actually could be bothered to read some of the actual source material. 2 counts of "molestation," a count of "unlawful coercion," and a count of "rape." - and it's very important that you understand that these are translated from the Swedish legal terms (as was "sex by surprise" - a literal translation of the category of crime), and thus are specifically defined in the law of Sweden; The Swedish terms may not conform to your personal definitions of "what constitutes molestation or rape."
The European Arrest Warrant contains four incidents that he is wanted for questioning in relation to:
"1. Unlawful coercion - On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange, by using violence, forced the injured party to endure his restricting her freedom of movement. The violence consisted in a firm hold of the injured party's arms and a forceful spreading of her legs whilst lying on top of her and with his body weight preventing her from moving or shifting.
2.Sexual molestation -On 13-14 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity. Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her without her knowledge.
3.Sexual molestation - On 18 August 2010 or on any of the days before or after that date, in the home of the injured party [AA] in Stockholm, Assange deliberately molested the injured party by acting in a manner designed to violate her sexual integrity i.e. lying next to her and pressing his naked, erect penis to her body.
4.Rape - On 17 August 2010, in the home of the injured party [SW] in Enköping, Assange deliberately consummated sexual intercourse with her by improperly exploiting that she, due to sleep, was in a helpless state.
It is an aggravating circumstance that Assange, who was aware that it was the expressed wish of the injured party and a prerequisite of sexual intercourse that a condom be used, still consummated unprotected sexual intercourse with her. The sexual act was designed to violate the injured party's sexual integrity." (para 3)
I'm gonna say that the actual charges outlined in the EAW and the actual text of the actual press release & judgement issued by the relevant courts in the UK hold a little more water than some random, 2-year-old AOL News article. If you disagree, you're welcome to present your legal reasoning, but it shouldn't take the form of blind dedication to your internet hero who "couldn't possibly have behaved like a douchebag to a couple women in Sweden."
Is it more improbable that the British Courts used French laws to justify the extradition in the first place?
They did not "use French laws." They interpreted an EU law initially written in French and translated to English based on the likely intent and meaning of the phrase, as written in the original, which would have a bearing on the subsequent English translation from the original French source.
They didn't just go pluck some random municipal regulation from Cannes to justify the decision - they explained in great detail that the French term "autorite judiciaire" had a much broader meaning than Mr. Assange's attorney was arguing.
It lasts for as long as he has been extradited to Sweden from the UK - that is, until he is returned to UK jurisdiction by Sweden.
The "above-mentioned Temporary Surrender clause" does not negate Sweden's obligations and commitments as an EU member state. If they wish to extradite Mr. Assange to the US, then they MUST secure UK agreement before doing so, or suffer sanctions from the European Court of Justice.
This isn't about "USA EVIL!" This is just an acknowledgement of the fact that the State Department REALLY REALLY wants to get their hands on him.
1) If the US wanted to get their hands on him badly enough that they didn't care about international law, he would have disappeared. Period. Full stop. Sure, there'd be lots of "YOU DID SOMETHING BAD," but absent a body, it's easy to deny that.
1a) Corollary to 1: If the US wanted to silence him with no care towards international law, then he would be dead, in an apparent mugging or robbery gone bad.
2) If the US wanted to get their hands on him while respecting international law and the treaty obligations of their European allies, then they could have easily requested extradition from the UK already. Trumping up charges to get him shipped to Sweden *doesn't* remove the UK from the scenario, it just *adds* Sweden to the mix of approvals required to legally extradite him - making it more complex, and harder, to secure the extradition.
3) This *IS* about "USA EVIL! ASSANGE GOOD!" Because it ignores the logical and legal specifics of the case in favor of FUD and fearmongering about the big bad ogre that is the US somehow engaging in elaborate Goldberg machine-like schemes to get Mr. Assange into their clutches. In fact, the Australian government has specifically told him they have no reason to believe the US is hoping to use this as a way to get their hands on him, and nobody's able to cite a single shred of evidence to support this other than vague implication that "somehow some legal treaty between Sweden and the US will supercede all of Sweden's other treaty obligations, and Sweden won't give a shit about those things because they're so eager to please the US."
No, he hasn't been accused of anything (as yet). He's wanted for questioning in relation to a reported crime, and without further questioning, the Swedish legal system cannot formally file charges (or dismiss the case).
Since he had left the country by that time, they ordered him detained "in absentia," and issued a european arrest warrant for him on suspicion of some degree of rape, and a couple counts of "sexual misconduct" or "harassment," depending on the translation.
If he is extradited, and the investigation finds no reason to believe formal charges are warranted, he will be released & returned to UK jurisdiction. If he is extradited, and charges are warranted, they will be filed & he will stand trial for those charges.
Shouting "he's not accused of rape" and flogging a 2 year old article with the scoff-worthy "sex by surprise" translation does not mean any of this procedure is unlawful, outside due process, or indeed, even slightly unreasonable.
Yes, actually. In the European Court of Justice, which is roughly the EU equivalent of the US Supreme Court.
The UK could sue the Swedish government there for "failure to fulfill member obligations," which could result in severe financial penalties being imposed on Sweden, and perhaps other punishments could be doled out as well by state level courts, as well - e.g., jail for specific law breakers / conspirators, if it's found that specific people in the Swedish justice department conspired with people in the UK or the US to break the law, etc. etc. etc.
1) Which is why he's being extradited under a European Arrest Warrant. You know that your arrest can be ordered so you can answer questions as part of an investigation, especially if the court has ordered you to appear, and you fail to do so, right?
2) Completely false. European Arrest Warrants, as 'federal' documents governing the extradition of Mr. Assange from the UK to Sweden, also come with the stipulation that the receiving country (Sweden) may not pass along an extradited individual without the express consent of the original country extraditing him to Sweden (that is, the UK). Given this, Sweden would either: a) have to turn it's back on the ENTIRE EU in order to say that the terms of the European Arrest Warrant do not apply and they're not bound by those restrictions because they have some other treaty with the USA; b) Get the UK's permission - not likely -they already have him in custody, if the US felt it was likely to get the UK's approval, they could have requested extradition directly from the UK.
While still in custody, Justice Department requests extradition tot he US.
At which point Sweden must go back to the UK and request a UK justice minister's approval to extradite on to a third party non-EU state.
European Arrest Warrants do not allow a state to "pass along" a person who's been extradited to them to a third party, especially a non-EU third party, without the express approval of the rendering state (in this case, the UK).
Which means that for the US to extradite him from Sweden, they have to get TWO countries' approval: UK and Sweden - which means that if they can't extradite him now, because the UK wouldn't approve, they sure as hell won't extradite him when he's in Swedish custody, because the UK would still have veto power, and it would also require Sweden's willingness to comply with the extradition request.
It doesn't magically become "easier" to extradite him because he's been handed over to Sweden. The only way he'd be at more risk would be if Sweden seems poised to fly in the face of every legal and moral obligation it has as an EU member state and hand him over illegally because they... what - want to sell more Volvos, and we gave them a sweet deal? And they can't say "WE DROP THE CHARGES, AND NOW HAND YOU OVER TO US HA HA HA!" without violating treaties and other legal obligations central to their EU membership, and which would probably be grounds for horrendous economic and legal sanctions.
You have to make a much more compelling case than "USA EVIL! ASSANGE GOOD!" for your conspiracy theory to be even remotely plausible.
Considering it's not a "license," for them to use anything, and the person behind you is not an "End user"... no, it doesn't mean you can put that bumper sticker on your car and call it an EULA.
You could put that sticker on, but it would not create an contractual or other legal obligation in the other person whatsoever. Your analogy would only make sense if Microsoft was putting a big sign on their Windows 8 package, reading, "By reading this sign, you agree to let Microsoft charge you $200 for a copy of this software, even if you don't take the software, and never use it."
humane: marked by compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals
Are you really suggesting that it's possible to have a *functional* morality (i.e., one that functions as any sort of reasonable foundation for a non-moribund society) that includes inhumane behavior like violence against innocent people as "good" behaviors? That inhumane treatment of another innocent human being can defensibly be called a moral good?
Tell me more, I'm fascinated by this new horizon in morality, and may wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
That's AWESOME. Except, many of the Old Testament "rules" - such as those in Exodus 21 - have been considered not applicable by Christian theologists at least since the time of Thomas Aquinas - that is, 1250 AD, give or take a few years. Most mainstream Christians today would rightly view anybody arguing for Old Testament law to be as loony as they consider people arguing for fundamentalist Islamic law to be. (See: New Covenant versus Old Covenant, esp. the abrogation of Old Testament laws by the New Covenant.)
"Although Christianity affirms that the Pentateuch is part of Scripture that is inspired of God, Christian tradition, in this case similar to Jewish tradition, denies that all of the Old Covenant still applies directly to Christians, but different arguments are used to reach that conclusion and there are differences of opinion within Christianity as to which parts, if any, still apply." (Source)
"Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas explained that there are three types of biblical precepts: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. He holds that moral precepts are permanent, having held even before the Law was given, since they are part of the law of nature; ceremonial precepts, which deal with forms of worshipping God and ritual cleanness; and judicial precepts (such as those in Exodus 21) came into existence only with the Law of Moses, and were only temporary. The ceremonial commands were "ordained to the Divine worship for that particular time and to the foreshadowing of Christ". Accordingly, upon the coming of Christ they ceased to bind, and to observe them now would, Aquinas thought, be equivalent to declaring falsely that Christ has not yet come, for Christians a mortal sin." (Source)
You might want to cherry pick a quote from something actually relevant to Christianity today. I can't speak to the accuracy of Quilas' comment above, but if it's accurate, it sounds to me like he's suggesting that there's a pretty strong argument even today that the initial passage about the deficiency of a woman's mind is considered fairly orthodox by many mainstream Muslim theologians.
That's a rather curious definition of "humane," if it says that the prevention of education of women and girls through violence (up to and including murder) as well as physical and verbal intimidation of the women and their families counts as "humane."
Is black also white? Is up also down? Have these humane soldiers always been at war with Eastasia?
I think the more likely alternative is the parents of the girls would keep the girls home - no risk of attacks, and no risk of inappropriate attention or interactions with young men. And that's precisely what the fundamentalist types want: uneducated women, dependent on and subservient to men.
And it's likely that in an attack like this on a co-ed facility, they would: 1) Kill any young man trying too hard to intervene; 2) Coerce the remaining young men to participate, or stand by and do nothing;
Or perhaps most monstrously, some of the young men may participate willingly because they subscribe to the same bankrupt ideology of the fundamentalist attackers. "Send your daughters to school with a bunch of men" is not a solution that would deter attacks. At worst, it would *invite* attacks, and at best, it would make no difference. It sounds nice, but it has no legitimate chance of success in a country where the rule of law is so tenuous.
but others may think that it's unethical that the creator has any say at all what people can do with property they paid for.
Sure those others are welcome to invent wildly imaginative but flimsy rationalizations for antisocial behavior, that's absolutely their prerogative.
The public will respond accordingly: reject overbearing DRM (I hear some boycott entire companies over their DRM)
And that's an absolutely reasonable response to terms you consider onerous. Saying, "Well fuck you, I'll download pirated copies anyway," is not. If you are willing to go to the trouble of pirating the game, movie, or music, the simple fact that you're willing to do that carries the implicit assumption that the item you're pirating has value to you. Taking value while offering nothing of value in return is the work of a parasite, and is inherently unsustainable: what the pirates hope is that enough people will keep paying for content that their misappropriation won't completely kill the market.
crack the easy ones
A reasonable response, provided the crack is for personal use - ripping a DVD to a hard drive; cracking a password so you don't have to be online to play a game you've purchased, stripping DRM from an MP3 you purchased so you can play it on another computer/device. If you are cracking it with the express intent of redistribution, it becomes unreasonable (see my point above about parasitism). Cheap or zero-cost reproduction does not eliminate the investment of time, money, and skill required to *create in the first place.* The cost of reproduction is a small fraction of the overall cost.
buy into ones that are acceptable (Steam is rather popular even amongst the anti-DRM crowd)
Again, completely reasonable. I want to be clear here: I am not supporting draconian DRM schemes, or unlimited copyright terms. I am simply suggesting that, if you take something of value, the proper thing to do is to provide something of value in return to the creator. This benefits them, in that they can pay their bills; It also benefits you, because supporting creative types who create things you value means they will have more time (and money) to create additional creative works to enrich your community - a virtuous cycle, if ever any cycle was virtuous.
Which is why you should probably be more circumspect about seeking a mate in your workplace. There are numerous other places where you can meet women, and where sexual harassment regulations aren't applicable.
possibly even a sincere hello if it is accompanied by even a polite friendly smile
Where does this paranoia come from? Seriously, has any man ever been accused of sexual harassment, EVER, for saying "Hi," and offering a smile? Even in a workplace? This sounds like you're making up excuses for why you're afraid to talk to someone.
In that case, it is clear that it's the industry who is doing the bulk of pillaging, as they're the ones who keep on yapping about their copyrights, when it's not really a right, but a government granted privilege.
I think you're conflating two distinct issues here.
One is the, "I purchased it, I should be able to watch it / listen to it wherever, whenever, however I wish." And on that score, I have no objection: I think it's absolutely reasonable to be able to format and device shift - I bought a copy of the song, I want to be able to listen to it on my iPhone, burn it to a CD to listen in my car, listen on my computer, etc. I bought a copy of the DVD, I want to be able to put it on my laptop to watch when I travel, or stream it from my media library to a tv. This, in my opinion, is completely legitimate fair use, and I'm in full agreement - to the extent that the industry attempts to prevent *these* types of uses (e.g., personal use, not redistribution), they're in the wrong.
The second issue is the "I shouldn't have to pay for anything because music wants to be free," argument, and that is unequivocally a legitimate copyright issue that the companies (and, more importantly, artists) SHOULD object to that notion, and SHOULD assert their copyrights to stop that infringement. And for the record, I would also agree that copyright terms should be significantly shorter than they are now.
What it boils down to, for me, is ethical behavior. If I want a copy of something, and the person who created it has not consented to it being distributed for free, it's not my "right" to distribute my own copy wherever I want, and it's not my "right" to take a copy just because I can. I either pay their asking price, negotiate a better price, or do without their creation because the value it represents *for* me isn't proportional to the value they're asking *from* me.
This presupposes you have no way of determining the quality of a movie or song before purchase.
Numerous film, music, and other art critics exist to issue opinions - read them, and it's likely you'll find at least a few people writing reviews whose taste largely matches your own, and make good barometers for you to use. Numerous fan discussion sites also exist; Amazon reviews, Netflix reviews, fan discussion boards, and your own review of the trailer, the actors' & directors' & screenwriters' previous work, clips, interviews; There are many ways to form an opinion about the likely quality without buying - Radio, broadcast television, cinemas, and other online formats also exist where you can listen to music and see movies before purchasing them, to decide whether or not you'll like them and want to own a copy.
IF you're following the strictest letter of this policy - e.g., the moment you decide you're not into a movie or song, you delete it and never bother with it again, or the moment you decide that you're *INTO* a movie or song, you go and buy it immediately, then I can't argue *too much* against a 'try before you buy' mentality. But if you're "I downloaded all these things, and kept them, but ALMOST NEVER watch them / listen because they're crap," then you're just rationalizing sketchy behavior so you can feel better about yourself.
Hell even candy companies provide refunds for dissatisfactory products.
They'll offer refunds if it's defective - e.g., you open the wrapper and there's a bunch of dead beetles in the package; And they MAY offer a refund if you "just don't like the taste," but that's not enshrined in any sort of law that they have to - that's a customer service perk you get because they want you to feel comfortable trying their candy.
Where it becomes hard to argue this point is if you've downed the entire bag of chips, candy, etc., and then decided, after consuming the whole thing: "Those chips were so AWFUL I demand a refund!" "But sir, you ate the entire bag." "Yeah, and the entire bag was nasty! You're lucky I could even choke it down!"
And this is how a lot of these arguments play out - "Transformers 2 was crap! I wouldn't pay money for that!" "Well why is it still on your hard drive, and why have you watched it 3 times?" "TO MAKE SURE IT REALLY WAS CRAP!"
That's a questionable broadening of the concept of trade.
Actually no, it's a pretty standard definition of the concept of trade: mutual exchange to mutual benefit, with neither side subject to compulsion. Both sides are welcome to negotiate, to haggle, and try to get the best deal they can; but when either side declares that it's his "right" to take something he wants at any time with no consideration given to the creator, and then acts on that "right," that is not "trade" that is "pillage."
once we delve into "copies of music" suddenly we're talking about something which literally can be duplicated with the push of a single button.
I see, and are there magical "Song Trees" growing in your fairy tale world where there's no time, equipment, or money sunk into the creation of the song and its production? Or are you just ignoring the weeks or months of time and material it can take to write, arrange, record, and produce it? And the fact that it costs very real money to *live* - you know eat, sleep, have shelter, electricity, running water - for those weeks or months of time?
Performing the song doesn't actually involve much work
Diagnosis: PHB syndrome - "That which I do not understand must be easy." Do you play an instrument? Have you performed in public? Have you ever written a song? Have you ever performed your own song in public? Have you ever even watched somebody perform a song? Have you ever watched somebody record a song? Have you ever recorded your own song?
it could take as little as 5 minutes (or less) to record the music.
Yes, as little as 5 minutes, or as long as weeks or months. Take a wild guess for me: how many songs do you think are recorded in only 5 minutes? How many more take days, or weeks, or studio time to get right? (Hint: It's the "days or weeks" one that's FAR more common.)
How much money is a duplicate of a recording of that work actually worth?
Here's what I don't understand at all about this pro-piracy argument. Unless you're running around downloading songs you hate that duplicate of a recording of that work is *CLEARLY* worth something to you. Why else would you go out of your way to install software to pirate the music and risk legal repercussions, only to download a bunch of music you hate? So you're receiving benefit from having a copy of the music, right? It means something to you, you enjoy it?
So why is the artist who created that song not entitled to some benefit in return? Leaving aside the question of "how much money for a single copy of an mp3" - if you get value out of the music, why do you feel no desire to give something back to the artist who has enriched your life that way?
It does not exist to benefit artists except as far as benefiting artists serves to promote the arts and sciences.
So, please explain this tortuous logic for me:
1) Copyright exists to promote the arts and sciences. 2) Copyright doesn't exist to benefit the artists.
In light of the fact that artists who retain copyrights and are able to sell copies of their work for a fair price are able to devote more time to the creation of new art because they can pay their bills with the income from those sales - resulting in more art being created. Copyright benefits "the arts" by benefitting the artist.
Recordings are "works"
Correct, they are "works" - which copyright grants them the exclusive rights to, affording them the opportunity to sell copies of that artistic work as they see fit for the term of the copyright. If you want to argue for copyright term reduction, I'd agree that the current state is pretty ridiculous. But if you want to argue that artists shouldn't retain copyrights to their work "because I want a copy," then
Slashdot Mirror
There's a world of difference. I presume you're talking about the "BODIES: The exhibition" display?
The BODIES museum:
1) uses bodies which are donated to science, through a conscious decision by the owner of the body;
2) Has an actual educational purpose which specifically requires the use of human bodies and organs - to teach about human anatomy.
The Catcopter:
1) Takes somebody's pet, or a feral animal that was killed "somehow"; and
2) turns it into a fucking RC toy.
There is no "educational value" to using a body in this way. If the BODIES museum strapped jetpacks on the corpses and launched them around New York and called it "art," then you might be right that there's "no difference." But since one has an educational purpose that is actually served by the use of donor bodies, and one is a toy where the use of the body is simply intended to be "cute" "funny" or "provocative," I'd say anybody who can't see a pretty clear difference between the two should probably spend a little quiet time reflecting on what intrinsic flaw they possess that makes them incapable of seeing a difference.
Is it really "chilling" anything, though? The filter they're talking about is purely opt-in: "if you wish to have these images not show up in little Johnny's wikipedia searches, click Enable." I don't see Google's "safe search" option exercising a noticeable chilling effect on the upload of pornographic material to the web, though the change in results is quite noticeable for many searches just by changing the safe search setting.
If that's the extent of the "filtering," I'm struggling to think of any reason why that would create a "chilling" effect on people uploading to Wikipedia. You haven't changed anything, except maybe a few images/video/etc. would get tagged "adult" or "filterable" or whatever, and thus omitted from a certain subset of search results, but still readily available for the people who haven't opted in to the filtering.
I wouldn't enable the filter for myself, though I might enable it for a child if they were going to have any 'unsupervised' computer time where they're clicking around on the web. Things like broad DMCA takedowns and obscenity laws can have chilling effects, but there doesn't seem to be any call for government sanction associated with this filter - just a convenient way for users to say "I'd prefer not to see that." I'm not sure that meets any threshold for producing "chilling" effects.
Context is key, friend. I'm not saying that "Any busybody on the street can sic the police on you because you spoke sharply to your child and 'hurt their self esteem.'"
I'm saying that, barring evidence that shows measurable harm being done to the children *as a result of their parents being involved in a polygamous relationship,* there is no reason to suppose that the government should be involved in any way in the relationship and lifestyle those adults choose. In much the same way that the government has no business telling you whether or not you can take away your kid's Elmo doll as a punishment, but society can and should have a role in telling you that you can't beat the shit out of your children for no apparent reason, or lock them in a closet for 3 weeks at a time with a loaf of bread and a gallon of water.
This is specific to the question about polygamy; We can discuss the role and extent of government protection for children - in any context they are born & raised - but that's really a separate question from whether or not being raised in a polygamous household is somehow harmful to children, and would warrant prohibition of polygamy as a specific protective measure. If there's no evidence supporting the assertion that it's harmful, polygamy should be a matter left to consenting adults, just like "regular" marriage, and just like "gay" marriage.
To the extent that polygamy:
1) Is consensual behavior among adults;
2) Does not produce evidence showing harm to the children born into such an arrangement, which would warrant a social intervention to remedy that harm;
Then why should the government care? They simply have no business telling two or more consenting adults how they should choose to live their lives, provided those choices aren't damaging others. I know a group of (lovely, adult) people involved in a polyamorous relationship - their relationship doesn't harm me or my more-traditional one-woman relationship choices any more than their decision to pain their house gray harms me, or detracts from my choice to paint my house tan.
If it's three or 4 consenting adults all deciding to live in some sort of communal / polyamorous relationship, I'm sure the contracts would be a fucking nightmare to work out to everyone's agreement, but if all of the people agree, why shouldn't they be allowed to live as they choose? The government should only be involved if there is specific damage being done to someone as a result of this relationship.
A libertarian take on gay marriage is that the government has no business regulating any consensual interaction between two people, and that government shouldn't be in the business of regulating or normalizing marriage - be it between two men, two women, or a man and a woman.
As far as the government is concerned, it should be no different from any other contract between two consenting adults - draw up the contract if you wish, get your lawyers to review & approve it, and as far as the government is concerned, that should be all that's necessary.
The government should also not attempt to regulate private organizations: for instance, by demanding that the Catholic Church "marry" two gay people, or by demanding that the Episcopalian Church excommunicate gay couples. It is simply not the government's business. The government exists to enforce any sort of "civil union" contract two people draw up and enter into freely; It should not be in the business of telling people who they may love and who they may not, and it should not be in the business of forcing private organizations to do something against their conscience - be it "officiating" over gay marriages, or "denying" gay marriages.
Or did you think libertarians were against gay marriage?
Will the actual details as presented in the European Arrest Warrant suffice?
For somebody who's "read them all," how exactly did you miss the press release summarizing today's judgement, as well as the judgement itself, which details this information?
Have you just been re-reading Joce640k's AOL News link that he's been spamming all over this article, and assuming that's the only information available?
Okay, I'll bite, since I actually could be bothered to read some of the actual source material. 2 counts of "molestation," a count of "unlawful coercion," and a count of "rape." - and it's very important that you understand that these are translated from the Swedish legal terms (as was "sex by surprise" - a literal translation of the category of crime), and thus are specifically defined in the law of Sweden; The Swedish terms may not conform to your personal definitions of "what constitutes molestation or rape."
The European Arrest Warrant contains four incidents that he is wanted for questioning in relation to:
Source: The press release detailing this information and summarizing the Judgement issued today.
I'm gonna say that the actual charges outlined in the EAW and the actual text of the actual press release & judgement issued by the relevant courts in the UK hold a little more water than some random, 2-year-old AOL News article. If you disagree, you're welcome to present your legal reasoning, but it shouldn't take the form of blind dedication to your internet hero who "couldn't possibly have behaved like a douchebag to a couple women in Sweden."
They did not "use French laws." They interpreted an EU law initially written in French and translated to English based on the likely intent and meaning of the phrase, as written in the original, which would have a bearing on the subsequent English translation from the original French source.
They didn't just go pluck some random municipal regulation from Cannes to justify the decision - they explained in great detail that the French term "autorite judiciaire" had a much broader meaning than Mr. Assange's attorney was arguing.
It lasts for as long as he has been extradited to Sweden from the UK - that is, until he is returned to UK jurisdiction by Sweden.
The "above-mentioned Temporary Surrender clause" does not negate Sweden's obligations and commitments as an EU member state. If they wish to extradite Mr. Assange to the US, then they MUST secure UK agreement before doing so, or suffer sanctions from the European Court of Justice.
1) If the US wanted to get their hands on him badly enough that they didn't care about international law, he would have disappeared. Period. Full stop. Sure, there'd be lots of "YOU DID SOMETHING BAD," but absent a body, it's easy to deny that.
1a) Corollary to 1: If the US wanted to silence him with no care towards international law, then he would be dead, in an apparent mugging or robbery gone bad.
2) If the US wanted to get their hands on him while respecting international law and the treaty obligations of their European allies, then they could have easily requested extradition from the UK already. Trumping up charges to get him shipped to Sweden *doesn't* remove the UK from the scenario, it just *adds* Sweden to the mix of approvals required to legally extradite him - making it more complex, and harder, to secure the extradition.
3) This *IS* about "USA EVIL! ASSANGE GOOD!" Because it ignores the logical and legal specifics of the case in favor of FUD and fearmongering about the big bad ogre that is the US somehow engaging in elaborate Goldberg machine-like schemes to get Mr. Assange into their clutches. In fact, the Australian government has specifically told him they have no reason to believe the US is hoping to use this as a way to get their hands on him, and nobody's able to cite a single shred of evidence to support this other than vague implication that "somehow some legal treaty between Sweden and the US will supercede all of Sweden's other treaty obligations, and Sweden won't give a shit about those things because they're so eager to please the US."
No, he hasn't been accused of anything (as yet). He's wanted for questioning in relation to a reported crime, and without further questioning, the Swedish legal system cannot formally file charges (or dismiss the case).
Since he had left the country by that time, they ordered him detained "in absentia," and issued a european arrest warrant for him on suspicion of some degree of rape, and a couple counts of "sexual misconduct" or "harassment," depending on the translation.
If he is extradited, and the investigation finds no reason to believe formal charges are warranted, he will be released & returned to UK jurisdiction. If he is extradited, and charges are warranted, they will be filed & he will stand trial for those charges.
Shouting "he's not accused of rape" and flogging a 2 year old article with the scoff-worthy "sex by surprise" translation does not mean any of this procedure is unlawful, outside due process, or indeed, even slightly unreasonable.
Yes, actually. In the European Court of Justice, which is roughly the EU equivalent of the US Supreme Court.
The UK could sue the Swedish government there for "failure to fulfill member obligations," which could result in severe financial penalties being imposed on Sweden, and perhaps other punishments could be doled out as well by state level courts, as well - e.g., jail for specific law breakers / conspirators, if it's found that specific people in the Swedish justice department conspired with people in the UK or the US to break the law, etc. etc. etc.
1) Which is why he's being extradited under a European Arrest Warrant. You know that your arrest can be ordered so you can answer questions as part of an investigation, especially if the court has ordered you to appear, and you fail to do so, right?
2) Completely false. European Arrest Warrants, as 'federal' documents governing the extradition of Mr. Assange from the UK to Sweden, also come with the stipulation that the receiving country (Sweden) may not pass along an extradited individual without the express consent of the original country extraditing him to Sweden (that is, the UK). Given this, Sweden would either:
a) have to turn it's back on the ENTIRE EU in order to say that the terms of the European Arrest Warrant do not apply and they're not bound by those restrictions because they have some other treaty with the USA;
b) Get the UK's permission - not likely -they already have him in custody, if the US felt it was likely to get the UK's approval, they could have requested extradition directly from the UK.
At which point Sweden must go back to the UK and request a UK justice minister's approval to extradite on to a third party non-EU state.
European Arrest Warrants do not allow a state to "pass along" a person who's been extradited to them to a third party, especially a non-EU third party, without the express approval of the rendering state (in this case, the UK).
Which means that for the US to extradite him from Sweden, they have to get TWO countries' approval: UK and Sweden - which means that if they can't extradite him now, because the UK wouldn't approve, they sure as hell won't extradite him when he's in Swedish custody, because the UK would still have veto power, and it would also require Sweden's willingness to comply with the extradition request.
It doesn't magically become "easier" to extradite him because he's been handed over to Sweden. The only way he'd be at more risk would be if Sweden seems poised to fly in the face of every legal and moral obligation it has as an EU member state and hand him over illegally because they... what - want to sell more Volvos, and we gave them a sweet deal? And they can't say "WE DROP THE CHARGES, AND NOW HAND YOU OVER TO US HA HA HA!" without violating treaties and other legal obligations central to their EU membership, and which would probably be grounds for horrendous economic and legal sanctions.
You have to make a much more compelling case than "USA EVIL! ASSANGE GOOD!" for your conspiracy theory to be even remotely plausible.
Considering it's not a "license," for them to use anything, and the person behind you is not an "End user"... no, it doesn't mean you can put that bumper sticker on your car and call it an EULA.
You could put that sticker on, but it would not create an contractual or other legal obligation in the other person whatsoever. Your analogy would only make sense if Microsoft was putting a big sign on their Windows 8 package, reading, "By reading this sign, you agree to let Microsoft charge you $200 for a copy of this software, even if you don't take the software, and never use it."
Read: "No, that's not really what I was suggesting, I'm really just spouting off to hear myself type. I love them keys clacking."
I'd say that Merriam-Webster's definition is a reasonable attempt at a "REAL" definition:
Are you really suggesting that it's possible to have a *functional* morality (i.e., one that functions as any sort of reasonable foundation for a non-moribund society) that includes inhumane behavior like violence against innocent people as "good" behaviors? That inhumane treatment of another innocent human being can defensibly be called a moral good?
Tell me more, I'm fascinated by this new horizon in morality, and may wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
That's AWESOME. Except, many of the Old Testament "rules" - such as those in Exodus 21 - have been considered not applicable by Christian theologists at least since the time of Thomas Aquinas - that is, 1250 AD, give or take a few years. Most mainstream Christians today would rightly view anybody arguing for Old Testament law to be as loony as they consider people arguing for fundamentalist Islamic law to be. (See: New Covenant versus Old Covenant, esp. the abrogation of Old Testament laws by the New Covenant.)
"Although Christianity affirms that the Pentateuch is part of Scripture that is inspired of God, Christian tradition, in this case similar to Jewish tradition, denies that all of the Old Covenant still applies directly to Christians, but different arguments are used to reach that conclusion and there are differences of opinion within Christianity as to which parts, if any, still apply." (Source)
"Roman Catholic theologian Thomas Aquinas explained that there are three types of biblical precepts: moral, ceremonial, and judicial. He holds that moral precepts are permanent, having held even before the Law was given, since they are part of the law of nature; ceremonial precepts, which deal with forms of worshipping God and ritual cleanness; and judicial precepts (such as those in Exodus 21) came into existence only with the Law of Moses, and were only temporary. The ceremonial commands were "ordained to the Divine worship for that particular time and to the foreshadowing of Christ". Accordingly, upon the coming of Christ they ceased to bind, and to observe them now would, Aquinas thought, be equivalent to declaring falsely that Christ has not yet come, for Christians a mortal sin." (Source)
You might want to cherry pick a quote from something actually relevant to Christianity today. I can't speak to the accuracy of Quilas' comment above, but if it's accurate, it sounds to me like he's suggesting that there's a pretty strong argument even today that the initial passage about the deficiency of a woman's mind is considered fairly orthodox by many mainstream Muslim theologians.
That's a rather curious definition of "humane," if it says that the prevention of education of women and girls through violence (up to and including murder) as well as physical and verbal intimidation of the women and their families counts as "humane."
Is black also white? Is up also down? Have these humane soldiers always been at war with Eastasia?
I think the more likely alternative is the parents of the girls would keep the girls home - no risk of attacks, and no risk of inappropriate attention or interactions with young men. And that's precisely what the fundamentalist types want: uneducated women, dependent on and subservient to men.
And it's likely that in an attack like this on a co-ed facility, they would:
1) Kill any young man trying too hard to intervene;
2) Coerce the remaining young men to participate, or stand by and do nothing;
Or perhaps most monstrously, some of the young men may participate willingly because they subscribe to the same bankrupt ideology of the fundamentalist attackers. "Send your daughters to school with a bunch of men" is not a solution that would deter attacks. At worst, it would *invite* attacks, and at best, it would make no difference. It sounds nice, but it has no legitimate chance of success in a country where the rule of law is so tenuous.
Sure those others are welcome to invent wildly imaginative but flimsy rationalizations for antisocial behavior, that's absolutely their prerogative.
And that's an absolutely reasonable response to terms you consider onerous. Saying, "Well fuck you, I'll download pirated copies anyway," is not. If you are willing to go to the trouble of pirating the game, movie, or music, the simple fact that you're willing to do that carries the implicit assumption that the item you're pirating has value to you. Taking value while offering nothing of value in return is the work of a parasite, and is inherently unsustainable: what the pirates hope is that enough people will keep paying for content that their misappropriation won't completely kill the market.
A reasonable response, provided the crack is for personal use - ripping a DVD to a hard drive; cracking a password so you don't have to be online to play a game you've purchased, stripping DRM from an MP3 you purchased so you can play it on another computer/device. If you are cracking it with the express intent of redistribution, it becomes unreasonable (see my point above about parasitism). Cheap or zero-cost reproduction does not eliminate the investment of time, money, and skill required to *create in the first place.* The cost of reproduction is a small fraction of the overall cost.
Again, completely reasonable. I want to be clear here: I am not supporting draconian DRM schemes, or unlimited copyright terms. I am simply suggesting that, if you take something of value, the proper thing to do is to provide something of value in return to the creator. This benefits them, in that they can pay their bills; It also benefits you, because supporting creative types who create things you value means they will have more time (and money) to create additional creative works to enrich your community - a virtuous cycle, if ever any cycle was virtuous.
Pool!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qam1fbQmA_s
Which is why you should probably be more circumspect about seeking a mate in your workplace. There are numerous other places where you can meet women, and where sexual harassment regulations aren't applicable.
Where does this paranoia come from? Seriously, has any man ever been accused of sexual harassment, EVER, for saying "Hi," and offering a smile? Even in a workplace? This sounds like you're making up excuses for why you're afraid to talk to someone.
I think you're conflating two distinct issues here.
One is the, "I purchased it, I should be able to watch it / listen to it wherever, whenever, however I wish." And on that score, I have no objection: I think it's absolutely reasonable to be able to format and device shift - I bought a copy of the song, I want to be able to listen to it on my iPhone, burn it to a CD to listen in my car, listen on my computer, etc. I bought a copy of the DVD, I want to be able to put it on my laptop to watch when I travel, or stream it from my media library to a tv. This, in my opinion, is completely legitimate fair use, and I'm in full agreement - to the extent that the industry attempts to prevent *these* types of uses (e.g., personal use, not redistribution), they're in the wrong.
The second issue is the "I shouldn't have to pay for anything because music wants to be free," argument, and that is unequivocally a legitimate copyright issue that the companies (and, more importantly, artists) SHOULD object to that notion, and SHOULD assert their copyrights to stop that infringement. And for the record, I would also agree that copyright terms should be significantly shorter than they are now.
What it boils down to, for me, is ethical behavior. If I want a copy of something, and the person who created it has not consented to it being distributed for free, it's not my "right" to distribute my own copy wherever I want, and it's not my "right" to take a copy just because I can. I either pay their asking price, negotiate a better price, or do without their creation because the value it represents *for* me isn't proportional to the value they're asking *from* me.
This presupposes you have no way of determining the quality of a movie or song before purchase.
Numerous film, music, and other art critics exist to issue opinions - read them, and it's likely you'll find at least a few people writing reviews whose taste largely matches your own, and make good barometers for you to use. Numerous fan discussion sites also exist; Amazon reviews, Netflix reviews, fan discussion boards, and your own review of the trailer, the actors' & directors' & screenwriters' previous work, clips, interviews; There are many ways to form an opinion about the likely quality without buying - Radio, broadcast television, cinemas, and other online formats also exist where you can listen to music and see movies before purchasing them, to decide whether or not you'll like them and want to own a copy.
IF you're following the strictest letter of this policy - e.g., the moment you decide you're not into a movie or song, you delete it and never bother with it again, or the moment you decide that you're *INTO* a movie or song, you go and buy it immediately, then I can't argue *too much* against a 'try before you buy' mentality. But if you're "I downloaded all these things, and kept them, but ALMOST NEVER watch them / listen because they're crap," then you're just rationalizing sketchy behavior so you can feel better about yourself.
They'll offer refunds if it's defective - e.g., you open the wrapper and there's a bunch of dead beetles in the package; And they MAY offer a refund if you "just don't like the taste," but that's not enshrined in any sort of law that they have to - that's a customer service perk you get because they want you to feel comfortable trying their candy.
Where it becomes hard to argue this point is if you've downed the entire bag of chips, candy, etc., and then decided, after consuming the whole thing:
"Those chips were so AWFUL I demand a refund!"
"But sir, you ate the entire bag."
"Yeah, and the entire bag was nasty! You're lucky I could even choke it down!"
And this is how a lot of these arguments play out -
"Transformers 2 was crap! I wouldn't pay money for that!"
"Well why is it still on your hard drive, and why have you watched it 3 times?"
"TO MAKE SURE IT REALLY WAS CRAP!"
Actually no, it's a pretty standard definition of the concept of trade: mutual exchange to mutual benefit, with neither side subject to compulsion. Both sides are welcome to negotiate, to haggle, and try to get the best deal they can; but when either side declares that it's his "right" to take something he wants at any time with no consideration given to the creator, and then acts on that "right," that is not "trade" that is "pillage."
I see, and are there magical "Song Trees" growing in your fairy tale world where there's no time, equipment, or money sunk into the creation of the song and its production? Or are you just ignoring the weeks or months of time and material it can take to write, arrange, record, and produce it? And the fact that it costs very real money to *live* - you know eat, sleep, have shelter, electricity, running water - for those weeks or months of time?
Diagnosis: PHB syndrome - "That which I do not understand must be easy." Do you play an instrument? Have you performed in public? Have you ever written a song? Have you ever performed your own song in public? Have you ever even watched somebody perform a song? Have you ever watched somebody record a song? Have you ever recorded your own song?
Yes, as little as 5 minutes, or as long as weeks or months. Take a wild guess for me: how many songs do you think are recorded in only 5 minutes? How many more take days, or weeks, or studio time to get right? (Hint: It's the "days or weeks" one that's FAR more common.)
Here's what I don't understand at all about this pro-piracy argument. Unless you're running around downloading songs you hate that duplicate of a recording of that work is *CLEARLY* worth something to you. Why else would you go out of your way to install software to pirate the music and risk legal repercussions, only to download a bunch of music you hate? So you're receiving benefit from having a copy of the music, right? It means something to you, you enjoy it?
So why is the artist who created that song not entitled to some benefit in return? Leaving aside the question of "how much money for a single copy of an mp3" - if you get value out of the music, why do you feel no desire to give something back to the artist who has enriched your life that way?
So, please explain this tortuous logic for me:
1) Copyright exists to promote the arts and sciences.
2) Copyright doesn't exist to benefit the artists.
In light of the fact that artists who retain copyrights and are able to sell copies of their work for a fair price are able to devote more time to the creation of new art because they can pay their bills with the income from those sales - resulting in more art being created. Copyright benefits "the arts" by benefitting the artist.
Correct, they are "works" - which copyright grants them the exclusive rights to, affording them the opportunity to sell copies of that artistic work as they see fit for the term of the copyright. If you want to argue for copyright term reduction, I'd agree that the current state is pretty ridiculous. But if you want to argue that artists shouldn't retain copyrights to their work "because I want a copy," then