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

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:59:57 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> Oh, come on - I think there's a bit of a difference between "you can't
>> post material you don't have the rights to" and "you can't speak out
>> against your government without risking your life".  Again, let's get
>> some perspective, please.
> 
>   Soon we will be in a situation where you really can't speak against
> your government (about certain issues) without being fined or jailed,
> which in many cases is effectively almost as bad as risking your life.
> 
>   You know, there are certain issues which are becoming more and more
> a taboo, and which are overriding freedom of speech. Not too unlike what
> has happened in China where, for example, speaking about the Tiananmen
> Square events is taboo and will get you fined or jailed.

I'm just speechless, Warp - that you'd equate protecting copyrights to 
the Tienemen Square massacre....well, like I said, I'm at a loss for 
words.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:59:57 -0500, Warp wrote:

> > Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> >> Oh, come on - I think there's a bit of a difference between "you can't
> >> post material you don't have the rights to" and "you can't speak out
> >> against your government without risking your life".  Again, let's get
> >> some perspective, please.
> > 
> >   Soon we will be in a situation where you really can't speak against
> > your government (about certain issues) without being fined or jailed,
> > which in many cases is effectively almost as bad as risking your life.
> > 
> >   You know, there are certain issues which are becoming more and more
> > a taboo, and which are overriding freedom of speech. Not too unlike what
> > has happened in China where, for example, speaking about the Tiananmen
> > Square events is taboo and will get you fined or jailed.

> I'm just speechless, Warp - that you'd equate protecting copyrights to 
> the Tienemen Square massacre....well, like I said, I'm at a loss for 
> words.

  I was not talking about copyrights.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Wasn't saying they should - it just sounded quite the opposite of what
> you were saying.

I was speaking of the "regional monopolies" granted local-loop 
communications companies in most areas. You really don't have a choice 
of who provides the wires and pipes to your house.

> As for looking at it from a moral perspective - I have no idea. 

I can see it both ways too. You don't want the government taking over 
and putting businesses out of business simply because the government 
doesn't actually have to follow rules of accounting. You also don't want 
to deny the government from improving things that are best improved by 
having buy-in from everyone.

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

Post a reply to this message

>> If that's the worst (or best?) you can come up with, I think we're safe 
>> with
>> being free to express our opinions :-)
>
>  You are being the perfect example of the type of mentality which allows
> freedom of speech to be limited more and more.

I think that making derogatory comments about certain people will have got 
you punished far worse than what happens today since a very long time ago. 
It's nothing new, if anything I see in recent times people being allowed 
more and more freedom without being punished.  You give some people an inch 
though and they take a mile.

Post a reply to this message

>> 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*.

Try telling that to a newspaper editor!  They can't go publishing things 
like I suggested without risking being sued or having some fine.  Ditto for 
people on the radio.  There are all sorts of laws that you can break using 
just words - it's nothing new.

Post a reply to this message

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

I'm not refusing to believe it, I just think that in each case there is 
always something more than you are trying to say.  There is no way in this 
world any police officer would even look twice at me if I told him how bad I 
thought the goverment was.  However if I start telling him about how I don't 
believe in the holocaust, or how I want to try and convince everyone to 
become Nazis, or if I start making insulting comments about people or groups 
of people, or if I even swear at him while telling him how stupid I think he 
is, of course that is going to cause trouble and likely get me carted off to 
the police station.  There's a difference, and if you're too dumb to realise 
when you're going to cause trouble by expressing your opinion in such a way 
then that's your own stupid fault for getting arrested or whatever.  Normal 
people don't have this problem.

Post a reply to this message