No one's freedom of speech is being violated by YouTube.
YouTube is a private service and they can ban whatever content they please - legally and ethically.
Morally, they're pretty much spot on. It's called "being socially responsible."
If the terrorists want to post videos, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. They're perfectly free to run their own video-hosting service.
An irony worth pointing out is that they almost certainly don't have government-protected freedom of speech in the countries where they're making these videos.
What's the kerfuffle really about? Sure, terrorists have rights. But so do the folks who run YouTube, and they're not obligated to host stuff they don't want to host. They're not a government-run service where "freedom of speech" even comes into play.
Didn't say it was logical, cupcake. Said I was OK with it. You don't have to be.
There's also an argument to be made that disenfranchising said mouth-breathers isn't even immoral.
Sense-of-humor FAIL.
Preventing people from casting legitimate votes, regardless of their political affiliation, race, religious background, or any other criteria covered under law, is both legally and morally irresponsible.
Meh. Being Republican is morally irresponsible, pretty much by definition. Therefore, disenfranchising GOP voters too stupid to show up at the polls on the right day? I'm OK with that.
Pissy argument FAIL.
I think the "given demographic" -- and the thing that damn near everyone here has lost sight of -- is teens who loiter, not all teens.
I'm not offended by the concept behind this device. If you can hear this device, and it drives you crazy, don't loiter in front of the store.
I haven't used Windows or bought a new CD in years, so I'm all "huh?" and "wha?" and "man, that sucks."
Still, I'm down with crapping all over Sony for being evil. Add me to the thumbs-down column.
Slashdot Mirror
What censorship legislation?
YouTube is a private service and they can ban whatever content they please - legally and ethically.
Morally, they're pretty much spot on. It's called "being socially responsible."
If the terrorists want to post videos, there's nothing stopping them from doing so. They're perfectly free to run their own video-hosting service.
An irony worth pointing out is that they almost certainly don't have government-protected freedom of speech in the countries where they're making these videos.
What's the kerfuffle really about? Sure, terrorists have rights. But so do the folks who run YouTube, and they're not obligated to host stuff they don't want to host. They're not a government-run service where "freedom of speech" even comes into play.
Didn't say it was logical, cupcake. Said I was OK with it. You don't have to be. There's also an argument to be made that disenfranchising said mouth-breathers isn't even immoral. Sense-of-humor FAIL.
Preventing people from casting legitimate votes, regardless of their political affiliation, race, religious background, or any other criteria covered under law, is both legally and morally irresponsible.
Meh. Being Republican is morally irresponsible, pretty much by definition. Therefore, disenfranchising GOP voters too stupid to show up at the polls on the right day? I'm OK with that. Pissy argument FAIL.
Nothing to see here, move along.
and I'll build a better OS than Vista from scratch. Really, that's some very expensive lipstick for a very ugly pig.
I think the "given demographic" -- and the thing that damn near everyone here has lost sight of -- is teens who loiter, not all teens. I'm not offended by the concept behind this device. If you can hear this device, and it drives you crazy, don't loiter in front of the store.
I haven't used Windows or bought a new CD in years, so I'm all "huh?" and "wha?" and "man, that sucks." Still, I'm down with crapping all over Sony for being evil. Add me to the thumbs-down column.