Where did I claim that? What I said, quite clearly, was that censorship is unnecessary and harmful to society. All censorship is a violation of free speech... but that doesn't mean that, automatically, every country with any kind of censorship is equal, which is what you're acting like I said. Some censorship does not equal no freedom of speech... some censorship equals some freedom of speech, and the two are inversely proportional. This seems completely obvious and rational, but I suppose your straw man is not.
The fact of the matter is- and you might not like it, but it is true- libel and slander are untenable laws in the 21st century. Your scenario, which still makes little sense to me, would not at all be affected by those laws. More likely than not, the person posting the remarks is either outside the reach of the law, or anonymous enough to not be worth the time of police in tracking them down. What does happen is that these laws are used to censor truthful publications, as in the case I referenced. Because of this ability to abuse well-meaning laws, I stand by my actual statement that any form of censorship violates freedom of speech.
The issue is a whole lot more complicated if you actually know anything about Marxism.
Suffice to say, none of the so-called "Communist" countries that have yet existed were anything like what Marxism was (rather unrealistically) supposed to be like. Further, many of them only used the title of "Communist" nominally, as denotation of a goal. For example, the S in USSR stands for socialist. They used the term interchangeably during and after Stalin, but really they are not. China only came about being after both terms got mixed together in the WWII blender.
My personal opinion on the matter is that socialism came far too soon for its own good. We're only now seeing the rise of technology that could truly lead to a post-scarcity society, which is something of a requirement in my mind for socialism to actually work. There is also the fact that it appeals to the "dumb majority," aka working class and below in third world countries. As you can easily see in Africa, ideology doesn't matter if the people will go along with whatever insane dictator comes along.
Long story short; you can call yourself an rocket scientist, and you can even be called one by your friends, but that doesn't mean you should expect to be hired by NASA any time soon.
I think you're trying too hard. That scenario lacks sense to the point of being worthy of status as an example of non sequitur. I'm really not sure why 4chan would care, unless you happen to be Sony. So while I would reply, I'm not entirely sure where your point was, honestly.
Most of the civilized world does not ban "hate literature," and I am sorry if you live in an uncivilized part of it. That leaves child pornography, which is simply a case of "think of the children," and the effectiveness and purpose of its banning has been thoroughly disproved already.
Censorship is never right. I believe I have, in these two posts, refuted every case of it to some degree. It is not necessary for society, it is not healthy for society, and we're nearing a time when those who support it will find themselves in front of a judge. Please ask Mr. Mubarak how it worked for him.
I think you found another of the biggest differences between religion and science, while attempting to argue against one. Scientists might reach insane ideas on their own, but they usually remain that - THEIR ideas. Others are almost never convinced, ensuring that science generally avoids irrational dogmas. It does happen, of course, but I hope you'll realize the difference between something happening randomly and being corrected as soon as everyone realizes it, and something being the essential basis of a system.
Dogma is a flaw in science, while it is a virtue in religion.
How about we draw the line at none. I'm usually more creative than to quote, but I think this is the most relevant reply to your post:
With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. -- Captain Picard
Perhaps I just realize the absurdity of all forms of censorship, and thus disagree with them. Claiming my opinions are "jumping to hyperbole" does little to change the fact that many are coming to share this stance, as more and more the excuses grow for why people should be repressed.
There is no functional requirement for any speech to be restricted. Laws against slander and libel are ineffective and constantly abused. Look up the British Chiropractic Association for an example of how these harm us all. Not to mention, their existence lends credibility to those with the ability to dodge lawsuits, who should not have any. Libel and slander protect the powerful, just like all other censorship. The fact people believe incredible information is neither justification for nor solved by censorship.
Fraud has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with money. Insofar as it might be conceived as censorship, which is in my opinion quite difficult to do, it is perhaps justified as something of a necessity in capitalist society to prevent fraud. That does not, however, justify any other censorship; just like China censoring worse than Britain doesn't justify Britain.
Trade secret laws should not exist. Privacy laws are entirely ineffective, feel-good laws, which have had no effect thus far in preventing breeches of privacy. There is also a question of if that might fall under contract law, considering terms of service, which is an entirely different matter.
So please, explain how I am "jumping to hyperbole" rather than making a conscious values judgement. Just because the majority of society accepts it doesn't make it right. Society has been wrong many times before.
Wait, did youreally just justify one morally bankrupt idea with another?
If they're inciting violence, deal with them via other legal avenues. Free speech has never been fully respected when it comes to the excuse of "inciting violence," so there is no need to add new methods of censorship. At least if you have to charge them with something there is due process. Three strikes is just hearsay bullshit.
I'm equally shocked that the chineese would not notice that their support is not exactly helpin Cameron either.
I think you're wrong in assuming that wasn't their goal from the outset. This is a PR nightmare for the Conservatives, and one I have a hard time believing the Chinese didn't foresee. They're a whole lot smarter than they let on.
As time goes on, more and more I get the feeling China realizes the absurdity of the world and wants to exploit it to their own gain. It takes some serious gall to go and embarrass your rival by associating them with yourself, but China just managed an astounding success at it.
Of course that's alright. Censorship with qualifiers is all fine and good, right? China has plenty of qualifiers, too, you know. People who care for their freedoms shouldn't accept hollow excuses for fascism, because as history readily proves, fascists have no shortage of them. Censorship is never the right answer, no matter how many times nor how loud people argue that it is.
Further, I believe that the Prime Minister and in fact most of the House of Commons have no idea how the internet works, as the PM repeatedly talked about "media companies and social media companies that are displaying these images," as if the internet is a TV network where every site makes a conscious decision what to show. I was utterly shocked that this is the person about to (attempt to) regulate social media. Britain need to get its act together, because it is starting to look more desperate and fanatical than the US, which is a very low bar to set indeed.
Spot the difference:
Egypt shuts down the internet to stop free speech.
The US shuts down phone communication to stop "protests," Britain wants to shut down the internet.
"You do realize that Murdoch supported Hillary Clinton, right?"
I am sure he has his reasons. That changes nothing I said.
"You do realize that Fox is NOT FoxNews, right?"
Fox News however is Fox. So is the Sun, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and of course so was the News of the World. Notice a pattern? About the only case of extreme-right tabloid trash that doesn't have the Newscorp name on it is the Daily Mail.
"Because Murdoch found that a majority of the population was not represented in news coverage. He grabbed them up and left all the rest to fight over the minority of what is left."
Actually, Murdoch found a similar group of ignorant nationalists as he did in Britain, who could be fed hate and misinformation so long as it agreed with their preconceived notions, and they would keep watching. Fox News is a tabloid news channel. If Murdoch has any claims to fame, it is that artful bridging of unabashed misinformation with TV News.
"Excuse me. I don't mean to embarrass you, but your ignorance is showing."
Please, educate yourself and read about his activities in Britain before Fox News ever existed before spouting off. It shows your own bias and lack of critical thinking skills.
Both are owned by the extreme right-wing and criminal Newscorp. That they try to cultivate multiple brand images is more a sign of a corporate personality problem than it is of unbiased functionality.
Slashdot Mirror
So, you protect those who think differently, by expelling those you disagree with? You've got a sense of morality there that Stalin would approve of.
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Shouldn't you be complaining about the people doing the bad thing, rather than the people who gave them a (poor) excuse to do a bad thing?
It seems lately that the measure of a country's freedom is the binary "they're/we're [better|worse] than china."
I am sorry that I do not meet with your approval. Please drop a note in the comment box. *Pushes forward trash can.*
Where did I claim that? What I said, quite clearly, was that censorship is unnecessary and harmful to society. All censorship is a violation of free speech... but that doesn't mean that, automatically, every country with any kind of censorship is equal, which is what you're acting like I said. Some censorship does not equal no freedom of speech... some censorship equals some freedom of speech, and the two are inversely proportional. This seems completely obvious and rational, but I suppose your straw man is not.
The fact of the matter is- and you might not like it, but it is true- libel and slander are untenable laws in the 21st century. Your scenario, which still makes little sense to me, would not at all be affected by those laws. More likely than not, the person posting the remarks is either outside the reach of the law, or anonymous enough to not be worth the time of police in tracking them down. What does happen is that these laws are used to censor truthful publications, as in the case I referenced. Because of this ability to abuse well-meaning laws, I stand by my actual statement that any form of censorship violates freedom of speech.
The issue is a whole lot more complicated if you actually know anything about Marxism.
Suffice to say, none of the so-called "Communist" countries that have yet existed were anything like what Marxism was (rather unrealistically) supposed to be like. Further, many of them only used the title of "Communist" nominally, as denotation of a goal. For example, the S in USSR stands for socialist. They used the term interchangeably during and after Stalin, but really they are not. China only came about being after both terms got mixed together in the WWII blender.
My personal opinion on the matter is that socialism came far too soon for its own good. We're only now seeing the rise of technology that could truly lead to a post-scarcity society, which is something of a requirement in my mind for socialism to actually work. There is also the fact that it appeals to the "dumb majority," aka working class and below in third world countries. As you can easily see in Africa, ideology doesn't matter if the people will go along with whatever insane dictator comes along.
Long story short; you can call yourself an rocket scientist, and you can even be called one by your friends, but that doesn't mean you should expect to be hired by NASA any time soon.
I think you're trying too hard. That scenario lacks sense to the point of being worthy of status as an example of non sequitur. I'm really not sure why 4chan would care, unless you happen to be Sony. So while I would reply, I'm not entirely sure where your point was, honestly.
Most of the civilized world does not ban "hate literature," and I am sorry if you live in an uncivilized part of it. That leaves child pornography, which is simply a case of "think of the children," and the effectiveness and purpose of its banning has been thoroughly disproved already.
Censorship is never right. I believe I have, in these two posts, refuted every case of it to some degree. It is not necessary for society, it is not healthy for society, and we're nearing a time when those who support it will find themselves in front of a judge. Please ask Mr. Mubarak how it worked for him.
I think you found another of the biggest differences between religion and science, while attempting to argue against one. Scientists might reach insane ideas on their own, but they usually remain that - THEIR ideas. Others are almost never convinced, ensuring that science generally avoids irrational dogmas. It does happen, of course, but I hope you'll realize the difference between something happening randomly and being corrected as soon as everyone realizes it, and something being the essential basis of a system.
Dogma is a flaw in science, while it is a virtue in religion.
How about we draw the line at none. I'm usually more creative than to quote, but I think this is the most relevant reply to your post:
With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censored, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably. -- Captain Picard
Perhaps I just realize the absurdity of all forms of censorship, and thus disagree with them. Claiming my opinions are "jumping to hyperbole" does little to change the fact that many are coming to share this stance, as more and more the excuses grow for why people should be repressed.
There is no functional requirement for any speech to be restricted. Laws against slander and libel are ineffective and constantly abused. Look up the British Chiropractic Association for an example of how these harm us all. Not to mention, their existence lends credibility to those with the ability to dodge lawsuits, who should not have any. Libel and slander protect the powerful, just like all other censorship. The fact people believe incredible information is neither justification for nor solved by censorship.
Fraud has nothing to do with speech and everything to do with money. Insofar as it might be conceived as censorship, which is in my opinion quite difficult to do, it is perhaps justified as something of a necessity in capitalist society to prevent fraud. That does not, however, justify any other censorship; just like China censoring worse than Britain doesn't justify Britain.
Trade secret laws should not exist. Privacy laws are entirely ineffective, feel-good laws, which have had no effect thus far in preventing breeches of privacy. There is also a question of if that might fall under contract law, considering terms of service, which is an entirely different matter.
So please, explain how I am "jumping to hyperbole" rather than making a conscious values judgement. Just because the majority of society accepts it doesn't make it right. Society has been wrong many times before.
Wait, did youreally just justify one morally bankrupt idea with another?
If they're inciting violence, deal with them via other legal avenues. Free speech has never been fully respected when it comes to the excuse of "inciting violence," so there is no need to add new methods of censorship. At least if you have to charge them with something there is due process. Three strikes is just hearsay bullshit.
I think you're wrong in assuming that wasn't their goal from the outset. This is a PR nightmare for the Conservatives, and one I have a hard time believing the Chinese didn't foresee. They're a whole lot smarter than they let on.
As time goes on, more and more I get the feeling China realizes the absurdity of the world and wants to exploit it to their own gain. It takes some serious gall to go and embarrass your rival by associating them with yourself, but China just managed an astounding success at it.
Of course that's alright. Censorship with qualifiers is all fine and good, right? China has plenty of qualifiers, too, you know. People who care for their freedoms shouldn't accept hollow excuses for fascism, because as history readily proves, fascists have no shortage of them. Censorship is never the right answer, no matter how many times nor how loud people argue that it is.
Further, I believe that the Prime Minister and in fact most of the House of Commons have no idea how the internet works, as the PM repeatedly talked about "media companies and social media companies that are displaying these images," as if the internet is a TV network where every site makes a conscious decision what to show. I was utterly shocked that this is the person about to (attempt to) regulate social media. Britain need to get its act together, because it is starting to look more desperate and fanatical than the US, which is a very low bar to set indeed.
You say that as if you think Apple cares. I have the distinct feeling that as long as it doesn't get on international news, they don't really care.
Scientists are convinced otherwise when evidence becomes available, and usually base their assumptions on factual information. Religions do not.
Spot the difference:
Egypt shuts down the internet to stop free speech.
The US shuts down phone communication to stop "protests," Britain wants to shut down the internet.
See a difference? Neither do fucking I.
The rules don't apply to the west. Only people the west dislikes have to follow the rules. We make the rules.
The 30s just called, they wants you back. Something about a fire.
It works if you do it before they take down the domain, at least for a while.
Only if by "democratic" you meant "republican," given the Teatards seem to determine the marching orders for the whole party these days.
"You do realize that Murdoch supported Hillary Clinton, right?"
I am sure he has his reasons. That changes nothing I said.
"You do realize that Fox is NOT FoxNews, right?"
Fox News however is Fox. So is the Sun, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Post, and of course so was the News of the World. Notice a pattern? About the only case of extreme-right tabloid trash that doesn't have the Newscorp name on it is the Daily Mail.
"Because Murdoch found that a majority of the population was not represented in news coverage. He grabbed them up and left all the rest to fight over the minority of what is left."
Actually, Murdoch found a similar group of ignorant nationalists as he did in Britain, who could be fed hate and misinformation so long as it agreed with their preconceived notions, and they would keep watching. Fox News is a tabloid news channel. If Murdoch has any claims to fame, it is that artful bridging of unabashed misinformation with TV News.
"Excuse me. I don't mean to embarrass you, but your ignorance is showing."
Please, educate yourself and read about his activities in Britain before Fox News ever existed before spouting off. It shows your own bias and lack of critical thinking skills.
Both are owned by the extreme right-wing and criminal Newscorp. That they try to cultivate multiple brand images is more a sign of a corporate personality problem than it is of unbiased functionality.