 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> 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"
I must have early dementia because I don't remember that.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:17:13 -0500, Warp wrote:
> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> 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"
>
> I must have early dementia because I don't remember that.
Just go back and read the earlier parts of the thread, that's what I did.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> 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*.
Well, they went from feudalism to communism. They no longer bind women's
feet, nor do they disallow women from learning to read. Taxi drivers all
have little statues of Mao where Americans would be putting St Christopher.
> enormous amounts of beggars living in underway passages (literally!) which
> didn't look like they owned anything else than the rags they were wearing.
I didn't see any of that in the cities. Indeed, I noticed that there
were *no* homeless or beggars. (I lie. I think I was once in six weeks
asked for some money by a little old lady outside a temple in center
city.) Out of curiousity, where and when was this that you saw it?
A fair amount of poverty, and a large number of people fighting to make
enough money at what I'd call menial jobs (selling produce in the open
markets, etc), but I didn't see anyone that looked like they had no
place to call home.
I saw a number of communities where jobs consisted of (for example)
picking the usable bricks out of a demolished building's rubble, or
washing clothes on rocks, while the city a couple miles away had a
half-billion-dollar tourist attraction being built (which one could
argue is a good allocation of funds, anyway). A few places where the
people didn't have glass in the windows. So yeah, there's still a lot
of poverty around outside the cities.
I'm pretty sure I heard the government goes out of its way to make sure
everyone has a home. You might wind up in a city you didn't want to be
in, but you'll have a roof over your head. Again, whether it's true or
not, successful or not, I couldn't say.
> If China is supposed to be some kind of communist nation, from what
> I saw it doesn't work at all.
My understanding is that it's vastly superior to what it was (say) 75
years ago, and steadily improving. Whether the people I know who live
there really have a 100% grasp on this, given the government control of
the media, is another question. It certainly seems like the government
is trying to do a good job, unlike some of the other places where it's
clear the government couldn't care less if everyone died, as long as the
cronies get theirs.
Of course, the problem with a benevolent dictatorship is that it turns
into the other type all too easily, and then you're pretty well screwed. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > enormous amounts of beggars living in underway passages (literally!) which
> > didn't look like they owned anything else than the rags they were wearing.
> I didn't see any of that in the cities. Indeed, I noticed that there
> were *no* homeless or beggars.
It seemed to depend on which part of the city you were. Beggars seemed
to frequent only some parts of the city.
> Out of curiousity, where and when was this that you saw it?
A couple of years ago we went to Beijing. There were many places which
were full of beggars who were very persistent and wouldn't leave you alone.
For example outside the gates of the Forbidden City was one such place
(although not the worst).
But there were people living in underway passages etc.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> It seemed to depend on which part of the city you were. Beggars seemed
> to frequent only some parts of the city.
I can believe that. Maybe they get in more trouble if they hang out
where the tourists are, which is usually where the beggars get more
money in this country.
> A couple of years ago we went to Beijing. There were many places which
> were full of beggars who were very persistent and wouldn't leave you alone.
Huh. I was there for a couple weeks, including all around center city,
and I didn't see anything like that. Mind, I wouldn't be surprised if
they were arrested and taken somewhere else so they'd stop bothering the
tourists. :-)
I'll ask relatives if they run into such.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:23:12 -0800 schrieb Darren New:
> 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.
Just to clarify a bit. The law in this case (§130 StGB) is against
"Volksverhetzung" and the paragraph relating to that is:
(3) Mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe wird
bestraft, wer eine unter der Herrschaft des Nationalsozialismus begangene
Handlung der in § 6 Abs. 1 des Völkerstrafgesetzbuches bezeichneten Art
in einer Weise, die geeignet ist, den öffentlichen Frieden zu stören,
öffentlich oder in einer Versammlung billigt, leugnet oder verharmlost.
which translates to
(3) One will be put in jail for up to five years or get some fine if one
publicaly or on a convention approves, denies or plays down a crime
commited during the national socialism according to §6, 1 of the
Völkerstrafgesetzbuch in a way, which is likely to disturb the public
peace.
So it has to be public *and* it has to be dangerous to the public peace.
While this may sound quite arbitrary I'm sure all terms are well (and
probably reasonable) defined in lawyers terms.
The intention of the law is to prevent someone like Hitler ever gaining
power again in germany by extremists positions (remember, he was
elected). That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
>
> 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.
While it is true, that Germans in generally don't like to hear it, it is
certainly possible to state the most ridicoulus positions, if you word
them carefully. In fact, that's what the right extremists parties (which
are thankfully not in power) in Germany do.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:40:37 -0500 schrieb Warp:
>> 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.
They are not actually. Symbols of organisations which work against the
constitution (and particular against freedom and democracy) are banned
(And it has to be determined by the highest court in germany, that an
organization is working against the constitution). However there are
exceptions to that ban, namely §86 StGB
(3) Absatz 1 gilt nicht, wenn das Propagandamittel oder die Handlung der
staatsbürgerlichen Aufklärung, der Abwehr verfassungswidriger
Bestrebungen, der Kunst oder der Wissenschaft, der Forschung oder der
Lehre, der Berichterstattung über Vorgänge des Zeitgeschehens oder der
Geschichte oder ähnlichen Zwecken dient.
which translates to
(3) Section 1 is not valid, if the propaganda or the action is used to
educate citizens, to defend against unconstitutional tendencies, is used
for the art or the science, the research or the teaching, the reporting
over processes of the events of the day or similar purposes.
History books clearly don't fall under this, if there is not a different
problem with the book, or the judge didn't follow the law (which would a
scandal on its own). Do you remember which case you are refering to?
Maybe I could figure out, what was the real reasoning in that case.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Fri, 21 Nov 2008 16:14:55 -0500 schrieb Florian Pesth:
> Am Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:40:37 -0500 schrieb Warp:
>
>>> 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.
Actually reading the german article on that on wikipedia, it seems, that
even the most ridiculous rulings of a judge, that was a case where
someone printed shirts *against* national socialism (depicted on it was a
garbage can and a swastika above it) was overruled by the next higher
court on the grounds of that law. So all in all the law system in germany
still seems to work ;).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Pesth wrote:
> History books clearly don't fall under this, if there is not a different
> problem with the book, or the judge didn't follow the law (which would a
> scandal on its own). Do you remember which case you are refering to?
The problem is that when you let censorship go on in restricted ways, it
gets applied in increasingly less restricted ways.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071207-german-politician-sues-unsues-wikipedia-over-nazi-symbols.html
Granted, he shouldn't have done that:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071211-german-politician-may-be-charged-over-wikipedia-nazi-dustup.html
But that doesn't help if you're already spending your money defending
against the rancor of some politician that doesn't like you.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Pesth wrote:
> Just to clarify a bit. The law in this case (§130 StGB) is against
> "Volksverhetzung" and the paragraph relating to that is:
I think there are a number of laws related, not just this. For example,
France tried to sue Yahoo for hosting auctions of Nazi memorabilia too.
(Oh, there, see the other post.)
> The intention of the law is to prevent someone like Hitler ever gaining
> power again in germany by extremists positions (remember, he was
> elected). That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Ah, so, because Hitler was bad, we're going to make sure you're not
allowed to advocate a political leader from a similar party? In spite of
it being a democracy? :-)
The problem with all these sorts of things is the slippery slope, and
the application in ways that the original authors didn't intend. That
always happens here: the politicians pass some overly broad law,
everyone complains it's overly broad, the politicians say "it would
never be used in that way, that makes no sense." And then you get
regular people being shipped off to foreign countries because they might
be terrorists.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:46:46 -0800 schrieb Darren New:
> The problem is that when you let censorship go on in restricted ways, it
> gets applied in increasingly less restricted ways.
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071207-german-politician-sues-
unsues-wikipedia-over-nazi-symbols.html
Well, yes, they try.
>
> Granted, he shouldn't have done that:
>
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071211-german-politician-may-be-
charged-over-wikipedia-nazi-dustup.html
>
It seemed to me, that the public in general in germany thought in that
case, that it was ridicoulous and that it wouldn't go through - at least
not the higher levels in the german law system. It looked like a PR stunt.
> But that doesn't help if you're already spending your money defending
> against the rancor of some politician that doesn't like you.
It's hard to compare directly to the US, because our law system is quite
different. But in principle you don't have to spend any money if you win
the case. AFAIK the loosing party and the state pay for your legal costs
(including costs for taking free days of your job). The state even
provides you with the money in advance to pay a lawyer if you can't pay
it yourself (of course it would be claimed back, if you loose the case).
What I mean to write is, it seems highly unlikely, that someone sues you
out of existance as it seems it is possible in the US (Is it? You
probably have other protections against that? Maybe on law firms, which
specialise on that cases? I think I read that in some liability cases it
is a real legal business and this law firms will take your case for free,
if it is likely that it can be won.)
I don't know how well it works, but in principle it should.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Pesth wrote:
> So all in all the law system in germany still seems to work ;).
Yeah. I think I'll just stick with a place where it's OK to advocate
what you believe in as long as you're just talking. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Pesth wrote:
> It's hard to compare directly to the US, because our law system is quite
> different. But in principle you don't have to spend any money if you win
> the case. AFAIK the loosing party and the state pay for your legal costs
> (including costs for taking free days of your job).
That sounds like a better system. Ours seems to encourage people getting
their way by filing lawsuits they know they'd lose if the other side had
the money up front to fight it.
> The state even
> provides you with the money in advance to pay a lawyer if you can't pay
> it yourself (of course it would be claimed back, if you loose the case).
We do get that, even if you lose the case. Or rather, the government
assigns a lawyer to you, which is similar but not as good.
> What I mean to write is, it seems highly unlikely, that someone sues you
> out of existance as it seems it is possible in the US
Yep. That's sadly possible. I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea
on a personal level, altho of course large companies like it.
You don't get that as much with criminal cases, because the government
has to supply a lawyer in those cases. Most people think those lawyers
aren't as good as the ones you pay for yourself, tho.
> I think I read that in some liability cases it
> is a real legal business and this law firms will take your case for free,
> if it is likely that it can be won.)
This is more "we'll countersue them for sueing you, and we'll take some
of the money you win if you win" sort of thing.
Some lawyer do "pro bono" work, which means they spend some of their
time for free helping those who need it.
But it's by no means cheap here to defend against any sort of civil or
criminal case that you win.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:51:13 -0800 schrieb Darren New:
> Ah, so, because Hitler was bad, we're going to make sure you're not
> allowed to advocate a political leader from a similar party? In spite of
> it being a democracy? :-)
No, no, no ;). Basically it's just forbidden to organize a mob randomly
murdering other people. If you lead a party which includes peoples of
mobs randomly murdering other people, but you don't tell this people
explicitly to murder, nothing prevents you of becoming Bundeskanzler (if
you get elected). The NPD exists and everyone knows, that there are Nacis
in it (and they are the mobs in Germany murdering randomly people). But
despite the failure to forbid this party was mainly due to other reasons
(german secret service had to many people in it) it is highly doubtable,
if the NPD could be forbidden on grounds of that law. Actually the
majority of current politicians right now are against forbidding them, on
the grounds, that it would legally not go through.
>
> The problem with all these sorts of things is the slippery slope, and
> the application in ways that the original authors didn't intend. That
> always happens here: the politicians pass some overly broad law,
> everyone complains it's overly broad, the politicians say "it would
> never be used in that way, that makes no sense." And then you get
> regular people being shipped off to foreign countries because they might
> be terrorists.
Well, the judges in germany are very independent and if they think the
law is overly broad and unconstitutional, they don't apply it (Ok, don't
quote me on the technical process of that - but in practice it means
going back to the drawing board for the politicians). If the politicians
make unconstitutional laws they will be sacked at some point (sometimes
it takes the highest court - but independence of that court is taken very
seriously. While I agree, that slippery slope is a problem in a lot of
cases (surveillance laws for example are going overboard right now) in
general it levels out after some time if people notice that they went
over board. BTW, I found that blog of an american law professor living in
germany quite interesting (he also writes about general stuff, but the
posts about the law made some differences clearer to me - for a german
the american law system looks ridiculous at first sight. However I think
that has mostly to do with a lack of knowledge of the details. Maybe it
is the same vice versa.):
http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am Fri, 21 Nov 2008 14:20:04 -0800 schrieb Darren New:
> Florian Pesth wrote:
>> So all in all the law system in germany still seems to work ;).
>
> Yeah. I think I'll just stick with a place where it's OK to advocate
> what you believe in as long as you're just talking. :-)
It is here, just think how to say it first and you can express
everything :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Florian Pesth wrote:
> No, no, no ;). Basically it's just forbidden to organize a mob randomly
> murdering other people.
Oh, same here. I don't think anyone thinks that organizing a lynch party
should be legal. Arguing that organizing a lynch party should be legal
is what is leagl.
> Well, the judges in germany are very independent and if they think the
> law is overly broad and unconstitutional, they don't apply it
They're supposed to do that here too. It winds up costing someone a lot
of money, and everyone without money who gets involved before the law is
overturned winds up being screwed. Sounds like Germany has a better system.
> http://andrewhammel.typepad.com/
I'll check it out. :-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
