 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] nawaz org<<<<<<
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >> 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.
The problem is that what is considered "derogatory" is being expanded more
and more nowadays with the political correctness religion. This is going so
far that people are suggesting that *official* statistics be censored if
they put certain groups of people in bad light. (In other words, what matters
is not the truth, but political correctness.)
Also nowadays presenting criticism of certain official policies are being
considered "derogatory".
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> 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.
Actually that might not be the case if you criticize *certain* policies
the government is imposing.
For example, if you express your opinion that "the <your own country>
government has a way too lenient immigration policy" you are already
touching a taboo subject.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> For example, if you express your opinion that "the <your own country>
> government has a way too lenient immigration policy" you are already
> touching a taboo subject.
But certainly where I'm from, and where I live now, saying such an opinion
would not cause any legal trouble, in fact it is frequently been a subject
discussed in the media here since they completely opened the border between
Germany and the Czech. You are not going to get arrested or fined for
making such comments. Again, maybe Finland is different?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > For example, if you express your opinion that "the <your own country>
> > government has a way too lenient immigration policy" you are already
> > touching a taboo subject.
> But certainly where I'm from, and where I live now, saying such an opinion
> would not cause any legal trouble, in fact it is frequently been a subject
> discussed in the media here since they completely opened the border between
> Germany and the Czech. You are not going to get arrested or fined for
> making such comments. Again, maybe Finland is different?
Write enough about the subject, and get known enough, and you may. It has
happened.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> 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.
Precisely. And the material that Warp is complaining about is banned
with the pretext that it can cause people to act on it.
--
The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Precisely. And the material that Warp is complaining about is banned
> with the pretext that it can cause people to act on it.
Except it *is* harmless, *until* someone acts on it. It *is* a pretext,
for the most part. When you start having the UN pass resolutions
worldwide that nobody should be allowed to question the accuracy of the
Koran, that's nothing to do with "Let's hang the gays".
Worse, of course, is that it's only the popular things you can't speak
out against. Nobody gets in trouble for bashing gays or pagans. Hell, we
passed a constitutional amendment specifically to harm gays.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Nobody gets in trouble for bashing gays or pagans.
Actually a few years back there was a huge controversy in Sweden because
a priest preached against homosexuality (nothing unusual in Christian
churches) and got sued because of that.
(Damn, I don't remember now if he was finally acquitted or convicted.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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*.
>
> Try telling that to a newspaper editor! They can't go publishing things
> like I suggested without risking being sued or having some fine.
Well, if you lie about someone in a way that damages their reputation,
yes. But that's not we're talking about. Certainly newspaper editors can
(for example)
In theory, you're allowed to say anything that's true. "It's my opinion
that ..." is true, since you've stated it as your opinion. Even if it's
"It's my opinion fascism is good" or "it's my opinion that God hates
you" or "I don't believe the holocaust ever happened." Which is some of
the stuff that (for example) Germany and France don't like to hear.
The problem with suppressing such things is that people wind up not
being able to discuss it in public, and in private people use the
censorship as an argument that they're right.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Actually a few years back there was a huge controversy in Sweden because
> a priest preached against homosexuality (nothing unusual in Christian
> churches) and got sued because of that.
Well, certainly in the USA you can get sued for anything, yes. Since it
seems to be the churches that bash the gays and pagans here, and since
the USA seems to be sliding down into a religious silliness not seen in
quite some time outside the USA, it's safe to pass constitutional
amendments bashing gays here. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> 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.
Where are you talking about? In the USA, many police would probably
agree. I think you'd find it quite different in China, for example.
> 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
You're not supposed to get in trouble for any of that stuff in the USA.
Indeed, the police are supposed to (and usually do) protect the nazis
and KKK and such while they're having their parades.
What possible benefit do you get from arresting someone who doesn't
believe in the holocaust? The problem comes when you start arresting
people next for not believing that men are superior and that God exists
and should be obeyed.
>or if I even swear at him while telling him how stupid I think he is,
That will get you arrested for something entirely unrelated to the fact
that you're swearing at the police officer, unless you have an
exceptional police officer.
> 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.
It's not "normal" people that the constitution is designed to protect.
"Normal" people understand that displaying Nazi symbols in a text book
about the history or WWII isn't advocating Nazism, but the book got
banned in Germany for displaying Nazi symbols anyway.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:45:36 +0100, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> Actually a few years back there was a huge controversy in Sweden
> because
> a priest preached against homosexuality (nothing unusual in Christian
> churches) and got sued because of that.
>
> (Damn, I don't remember now if he was finally acquitted or convicted.)
Acquitted. He was not sued though; he was tried on criminal charges.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
> Acquitted. He was not sued though; he was tried on criminal charges.
I'm not acquainted with the legal terminology. What's the difference?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> "Normal" people understand that displaying Nazi symbols in a text book
> about the history or WWII isn't advocating Nazism, but the book got
> banned in Germany for displaying Nazi symbols anyway.
Is Germany going down the path of history censorship?
Isn't that a bit the same the nazis themselves practiced?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Fredrik Eriksson <fe79}--at--{yahoo}--dot--{com> wrote:
>> Acquitted. He was not sued though; he was tried on criminal charges.
>
> I'm not acquainted with the legal terminology. What's the difference?
Criminal charges is when the government tries to put you in jail for
something. A lawsuit is when a private individual tries to get you to
give them money for something.
If you're in a car accident, you might get a lawsuit from the other
person who wants you to pay their medical bills.
If you intentionally try to run someone down, you'll get criminal
charges of attempted murder or some such, and it'll be the government
(and not the person you tried to run down) that will be giving you trouble.
Lawsuits fall into "contract law" and "torts." Contract law comes up
when you break an agreement with some other party. "Torts" are when you
don't have a prior agreement. So "contract law" covers things like (say)
warranties and buying something that never gets delivered and stuff like
that. A "tort" would be someone at the store leaving a broom across the
stairs that you trip over and hurt yourself, or spilling hot McD's
coffee in your lap.
In the USA, there are different legal standards, since the government is
presumed to have so much more money and power than an individual. A
lawsuit between private individuals can't lead to jail time, so whoever
provides a "preponderance of evidence", which is to say a bit more than
50%, wins. For something with jail time, you need "beyond a reasonable
doubt", i.e., no reasonable person could doubt that you're guilty.
And then you have "felony" and "misdemeanor", the first of which is
possible jail time more than a year, the latter of which is jail time
necessarily less than a year. (Like, say, murder verses vandalism.)
I'm not a lawyer, I know virtually nothing about law outside the USA,
and none of this likely applies to you. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> "Normal" people understand that displaying Nazi symbols in a text book
>> about the history or WWII isn't advocating Nazism, but the book got
>> banned in Germany for displaying Nazi symbols anyway.
>
> Is Germany going down the path of history censorship?
I think it was just a bit of over-zealousness. They weren't trying to
censor history. They just wound up censoring history books (or was it
Wikipedia?) because the law was you couldn't display Nazi symbols in
public or some such, without any exception for educational purposes.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> I think it was just a bit of over-zealousness. They weren't trying to
> censor history. They just wound up censoring history books (or was it
> Wikipedia?) because the law was you couldn't display Nazi symbols in
> public or some such, without any exception for educational purposes.
I have always wondered what's the *purpose* of that law, the *goal* it's
trying to achieve.
Is it yet another victimless crime?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have always wondered what's the *purpose* of that law, the *goal* it's
> trying to achieve.
I think the idea is to have an excuse to arrest people who are actually
advocating a return of Nazism. Same as the law against holocaust denial,
really.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Worse, of course, is that it's only the popular things you can't speak
> out against. Nobody gets in trouble for bashing gays or pagans. Hell, we
> passed a constitutional amendment specifically to harm gays.
>
Interesting read, this is the "anti-Catholic League"'s (well sort of),
view "of" the Catholic League:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/pubs/documents/CatholicLeague.pdf
I love where it states that if you divided the "entire" money taken in
by the League the prior year by the $30 fee to be a member, you get
83,000 people, total, but dear old Bill claims they have 350,000
members. Then again, he also has "said" that he counts anyone that isn't
a "member", and gives him money as 1/2 a member, so.. without clear
numbers its hard to say. It could be him and the board, a few fruit
cakes, lets say.. 20 people at $30 a head = $600 + 700,000 people, who
sent him... $3.56 each? lol
Nah. What "is" true about the US is that the press will jump at anything
a loud mouth idiot says, **never** check any of their facts, and as a
result, people like Donahue have figured out that being loud, even
before you know what the hell you are protesting, through the right
"press sources", often enough, and re-expressed persistently enough, and
any paranoid idiocy will be lapped up by the press, paraded around as an
example of what "most members of group X believe", even if that is a
complete lie, and major corporations, businesses, government agencies,
and public organizations, will cave, rather than even try to fight back.
This is the "true" power of the religious right and the conservative
movement. Whining about imaginary "persecution" of their views, and
their "common cause" with other "religious" people, loudly, often,
constantly, and dishonestly, like some yapping poodle, stuck in an air
vent, so that **everyone** imagines is a huge pack of ravenous dogs at
there heals, not something with an inferiority complex, that does
nothing but bark, and you could kick out of the way like a football,
should it ever climb out of the vent long enough for you to figure it out.
And "everyone" is so bamboozled by these yapping idiots, they even have
otherwise "sane" people like my own parents, who given the shit they
went through and grew up *with*, should know better, parroting the,
"America is going to hell and losing its moral compass", BS.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I have always wondered what's the *purpose* of that law, the *goal* it's
> trying to achieve.
Aaaaand, welcome to the UK!
http://gnuru.org/article/1400/uk-government-ban-content-it-doesn-t-like
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Well, if you lie about someone in a way that damages their reputation,
> yes. But that's not we're talking about. Certainly newspaper editors can
> (for example)
>
> In theory, you're allowed to say anything that's true. "It's my opinion
> that ..." is true, since you've stated it as your opinion.
The problem comes when you say something that is your opinion/stance, and it
harms someone else enough to warrant action. It's perfectly possible to
seriously damage a person, company or group of peoples reputation by just
stating your opinion, especially if you are usually a trusted or well-read
source of information.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Where are you talking about? In the USA, many police would probably
> agree. I think you'd find it quite different in China, for example.
Exactly my point, here in the countries I've lived in, expressing your
opinion in a sensible manner would never get you in trouble.
>> 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
>
> You're not supposed to get in trouble for any of that stuff in the USA.
I think the whole holocaust/nazi/hitler thing here is a bit different from
the rest of the world. Germany needed to be seen as taking action, so were
kind of forced to pass these laws. As Warp pointed out, sometimes it's a
bit stupid with eg the nazi symbol in books, but they have the laws to give
the police power to really stop anything like that ever happening again.
> What possible benefit do you get from arresting someone who doesn't
> believe in the holocaust?
It's not so much the arresting them, but the seriousness of the situation
that it instills on everyone else. It's like saying "look this is a really
important part of history that we must never forget, there's no way anyone
is allowed to try and mess it up by spreading false information and
beliefs".
> The problem comes when you start arresting people next for not believing
> that men are superior and that God exists and should be obeyed.
I think the holocaust is a just exception to normal beliefs.
> "Normal" people understand that displaying Nazi symbols in a text book
> about the history or WWII isn't advocating Nazism, but the book got banned
> in Germany for displaying Nazi symbols anyway.
I think with that one they just don't want to define a line to divide what
is ok and what's not ok regarding the nazi symbol, far easier to just say
nothing is ok.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > I have always wondered what's the *purpose* of that law, the *goal* it's
> > trying to achieve.
> I think the idea is to have an excuse to arrest people who are actually
> advocating a return of Nazism. Same as the law against holocaust denial,
> really.
But I find it hard to believe that such a law is passed in congress without
anyone presenting some logical, legally sound arguments about why the law is
valid and makes sense. I don't believe "so that we will have an additional
convenient excuse to arrest neonazis" is a legally sound argument.
They must have come up with *some* rationalization to pass the law other
than that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Aaaaand, welcome to the UK!
> http://gnuru.org/article/1400/uk-government-ban-content-it-doesn-t-like
I really don't see too much of a difference between that and the internet
censorship in China...
(The scary thing is that that kind of attitude is getting more and more
common in western countries.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> But I find it hard to believe that such a law is passed in congress without
> anyone presenting some logical, legally sound arguments about why the law is
> valid and makes sense. I don't believe "so that we will have an additional
> convenient excuse to arrest neonazis" is a legally sound argument.
You find it _hard_ to believe?
Congress over here just authorized giving out $700 billion with almost
no oversight, and based on a flimsy 3 page report. The "logical, sound"
argument for the amount of money? "Sounded like a good figure. Oh, and
BTW, I have no idea if this plan will work. The economy is funny
sometimes" (paraphrased).
--
In an Astronomy class (toward an Astronomy major, not that gen-ed crap)
the professor did not tell us we would have to remember constants, and
he asked them as questions. They were short questions, and weren't worth
a lot.
One of them was: What is the orbital period of Saturn? (2 pts/100)
I started thinking about Bode's law and the posibility I could calculate
it from an approximate radius I would get from that law... if I could
remember it. But when you expect a 72% to be an A on a test, you have
bigger fish to fry.
Then I got it. It was right, it should work, and no one would have to be
nailed to anything.
I wrote: One Saturn-Year
I didn't get credit for it. A couple years later a sophomore was telling
me about this funny question he had in the same class. He showed it to
me. It read:
What is the orbital period of Saturn? (Do not put one Saturn-Year)
I was so right that it had to be guarded against. Yet those were 2
points I would never have.
(as told by SetupWeasel on Slashdot)
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> The problem comes when you say something that is your opinion/stance,
> and it harms someone else enough to warrant action.
I believe the expression for that in our country is "tough noogies."
No, you don't get to beat me up for expressing my opinion, no matter how
much you dislike it. Instead, you too have freedom to explain why my
opinion is so wrong.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> They must have come up with *some* rationalization to pass the law other
> than that.
Well, I *think* the reason is "Nazism was awful, and killed millions and
millions of people in the worst war the world has ever seen, so it makes
sense to prevent people from advocating we do that again."
It's rational. Not what I'd think is a good idea, but rational.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Aaaaand, welcome to the UK!
>
>> http://gnuru.org/article/1400/uk-government-ban-content-it-doesn-t-like
>
> I really don't see too much of a difference between that and the internet
> censorship in China...
You mean, other than China being a developing totalitarian state
struggling with economic and political stability, while the UK is a
stable democracy? No, not too much difference. :-)
> (The scary thing is that that kind of attitude is getting more and more
> common in western countries.)
Well, yes, that was kind of my point there. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> have the laws to give the police power to really stop anything like that
> ever happening again.
So, no matter how much the population might want that, they can't have
it. Welcome to lack of democracy.
> It's not so much the arresting them, but the seriousness of the
> situation that it instills on everyone else.
So, we don't really want to arrest you. We want you to just understand
we really, really mean it.
> It's like saying "look
> this is a really important part of history that we must never forget,
> there's no way anyone is allowed to try and mess it up by spreading
> false information and beliefs".
And I'm sure there are large numbers of people in the USA that would say
*exactly* the same thing about the Bible, and large numbers of people in
the middle east who would say *exactly* the same thing about the Koran.
>> The problem comes when you start arresting people next for not
>> believing that men are superior and that God exists and should be obeyed.
>
> I think the holocaust is a just exception to normal beliefs.
Why? Isn't it better to show people they're wrong than to arrest the
people who hold unpopular opinions? And don't think they don't get
arrested - that's what laws are for.
> I think with that one they just don't want to define a line to divide
> what is ok and what's not ok regarding the nazi symbol, far easier to
> just say nothing is ok.
And that's the other half of the problem. Censorship isn't OK just
because you're censoring an unpopular opinion. Indeed, that's kind of
the point.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > They must have come up with *some* rationalization to pass the law other
> > than that.
> Well, I *think* the reason is "Nazism was awful, and killed millions and
> millions of people in the worst war the world has ever seen, so it makes
> sense to prevent people from advocating we do that again."
> It's rational. Not what I'd think is a good idea, but rational.
Yeah, I see how history books advocate nazism and thus should be banned.
Very rational.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> >> Aaaaand, welcome to the UK!
> >
> >> http://gnuru.org/article/1400/uk-government-ban-content-it-doesn-t-like
> >
> > I really don't see too much of a difference between that and the internet
> > censorship in China...
> You mean, other than China being a developing totalitarian state
> struggling with economic and political stability, while the UK is a
> stable democracy? No, not too much difference. :-)
Ok, there is a difference: China has some kind of excuse.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Yeah, I see how history books advocate nazism and thus should be banned.
> Very rational.
I think everyone involved realized that it wasn't intended to apply in
that situation, no. I'm saying "it's rational to ban advocating it."
They just did a poor job of defining "advocating", and wound up
including "displaying or distributing nazi symbols" without thinking
about things like historical photos.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Ok, there is a difference: China has some kind of excuse.
Yep yep. Also, having been there and having relatives there, I think
the amount of repression is vastly overblown. It seems to be a
benevolent dictatorship (so far), and most of the people really
appreciate what the government is doing for them. I wouldn't be
surprised if the Chinese government is better for their people than many
western governments were (say) 100 or 200 years ago. Certainly the
French wouldn't have felt the need to create a machine to more
efficiently behead their politicians if their government wasn't pretty
abusive at the time. :-)
Sure, when the police and the army are the same group, you get things
like tanks being brought in to suppress what's seen as a revolution. And
now that there's actual live international news broadcasts, you see that
stuff. But the US has done some pretty awful stuff not too different
from that in fairly recent history too.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:01:34 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> 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.
That's how it looked to me - you started with a topic about how not being
allowed to post materials you don't have rights to is "censorship" and
then said "before you know it, you won't be able to criticize your
government". Now you tell me how the former is not about copyrights.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Yep yep. Also, having been there and having relatives there, I think
> the amount of repression is vastly overblown. It seems to be a
> benevolent dictatorship (so far), and most of the people really
> appreciate what the government is doing for them.
What I really don't understand is that China is *supposed* to have some
kind of communist (or similar) government, yet you couldn't see that there
*at all*.
I have absolutely no experience nor sure knowledge about how life was
in the Soviet Union when it was still fully communist, but if I'm not
completely mistaken, it at least worked at some level, in that the vast
majority of people had a home and some kind of living (and, on the other
hand, there were no rich snobs). The same is probably even truer for Cuba
(at least deducing from their health care and schooling system).
In China, however, the difference between poor and rich was extremely
glaring. On one hand there were people with brand new expensive Mercedes
cars, cellphones and all that crap, and at the same time there were
enormous amounts of beggars living in underway passages (literally!) which
didn't look like they owned anything else than the rags they were wearing.
If China is supposed to be some kind of communist nation, from what
I saw it doesn't work at all.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
