Warp wrote:
>   Fine, refuse to believe that people are being sanctioned for simply
> expressing their opinion, with absolutely no violence involved.

In spite of numerous actual videos of it happening on youtube. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> Where I'm from, "most cops" don't even *have* guns...

Well, there is that, yes.  A much better way to work things, IMO.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> scott wrote:
>> Publishing derogatory comments, especially when generalising about a
>> certain group of people is a very dangerous thing to do,
> 
> No it's not.  It's *words*.

	Both of you are going to opposite extremes. There are intermediary states.

	Taking your message literally, by their (them?) being *words* does not
make them harmless or harmful. Unless you think that someone suggesting
all members of race Z should be killed is harmless.

-- 
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>>>     Not in the US. If your protests indeed disrupt the government, or
>>>> traffic, or so many other things, you get in trouble.
>>> The protests are supposed to disrupt the government. It's *supposed* to
>>> be OK, as long as it's peaceful.
>>
>>     Well, exactly how can they "disrupt the government" while being
>> "peaceful"?
> 
> Well, OK.  You can certainly disrupt government plans without disrupting
> the government as such. That's kind of the wonders of democracy.
> 
> Sure, if you actually prevent the government from governing, you're
> breaking the law.

	Which was my point.


-- 
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> Well, exactly how can they "disrupt the government" while being
>> "peaceful"?
> 
> Vote for someone else.  Lobby your local politicians.  Make a petition. 
> Try to gather support in the community.  Hold a peaceful protest at a
> key location.  There are many non-violent ways to disrupt the
> government. Physically disrupting it by force is not one of them.

	How are any of these disrupting the government? Voting is part of the
process - no one classifies it as a disruption. Lobbying disrupts what
and how, exactly? Peaceful protest is equally peacefully ignored.

	Not that I'm advocating either side - just pointing out that in the US,
disrupting the government is generally illegal - regardless of the method.

-- 
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
> I saw a thing here a while back where a group of people were protesting
> about something.  There were literally twice as many police with shields
> and guns compared to the protesters (who were armed with nothing).  The
> police were just waiting at a safe distance when suddenly the protesters
> started destroying peoples gardens and ripping out fences and trees to
> throw at the police.  The police did nothing, they just stood there. 
> Afterwards they showed the state of these peoples gardens and
> interviewed them, basically they couldn't believe it that the police did
> absolutely nothing to protect their property.
> 
> If that is "free speech" and "freedom to express your opinion", then I
> want it banned!

	It isn't.

	Pointing out situations where the police don't do their job is not an
argument against anything Warp was saying.


-- 
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   Fine, refuse to believe that people are being sanctioned for simply
>> expressing their opinion, with absolutely no violence involved.
> 
> In spite of numerous actual videos of it happening on youtube. :-)

	Kind of hard to figure out whether you mean videos supporting Warp's
point or Scott's ;-)

-- 
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>> limited because the companies sued whenever the government tried
>> providing free Internet...
> 
> Oh, and yes, the government isn't supposed to do that sort of thing. :-)
> I can understand why the private companies sued.

	Wasn't saying they should - it just sounded quite the opposite of what
you were saying.

	As for looking at it from a moral perspective - I have no idea. I can
see it both ways. People and societies are very keen on maintaining the
status quo. If a company sued a city because they had a private library
and felt the city was competing, would you side with the private
business? I'm not asking from a legalistic viewpoint, BTW.

-- 
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Unless you think that someone suggesting
> all members of race Z should be killed is harmless.

It's harmess unless someone acts on it. It's merely an opinion.

Alternately, I'm not against banning *all* such speech, as long as it 
includes (for example) the Bible and such. Somehow, I don't think this 
is what the authors of such laws have in mind, tho.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   Fine, refuse to believe that people are being sanctioned for simply
>>> expressing their opinion, with absolutely no violence involved.
>> In spite of numerous actual videos of it happening on youtube. :-)
> 
> 	Kind of hard to figure out whether you mean videos supporting Warp's
> point or Scott's ;-)

Warp's, because there *are* such videos.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message