 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> You demonstrate perfectly the kind of mentality. Limiting freedom of
> speech is completely "acceptable" when the subject in question is taboo
> enough.
You *really* believe you have complete freedom of speech? What gives you
the right to expect that? The general public expect that if you lie to an
official, or tell others to commit crimes, or speak in a way that damages
anyone else mentally, you should be suitably punished. I'd hate to live
somewhere where those sorts of acts went unpunished.
> People are already being fined in many western countries for expressing
> their opinion *without* causing any trouble.
Care to give any examples?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Invisible wrote:
>>
>>>> So now many clients support encryption. Run it through port 443 and
>>>> they
>>>> can't tell it apart from online banking :)
>>>
>>> ...except for the massive quantity of data. :-P
>>>
>>> Traffic analysis, anyone?
>>
>> Hmm, massive amounts of data encrypted and obscured are bound to raise
>> a few eyebrows.
>
> Indeed. A typical HTTPS session transaction is, what, 200 KB?
> Transferring multiple GB of data in both directions might look
> *slightly* suspicious...
>
> Thinking about it, all an ISP *really* needs to do is block any network
> transaction involving "large" amounts of data. That'll block any
> concievably file-sharing technology, not just BitTorrent.
Or they can just start charging you by the MB once you've exceeded a
certain monthly cap. Some ISPs in the U.S. are doing just that.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Thinking about it, all an ISP *really* needs to do is block any
>> network transaction involving "large" amounts of data. That'll block
>> any concievably file-sharing technology, not just BitTorrent.
>
> Or they can just start charging you by the MB once you've exceeded a
> certain monthly cap. Some ISPs in the U.S. are doing just that.
Yeah, I've heard of such things.
Of course, no ISP can truly offer an "unlimited" Internet access
package. The difference is that some of them will *tell* you what the
limit is, and others will make it up as they go along...
(If the limit is in the T&C, then that's the limit they have to follow.
If the T&C are more vague, they can cap you to whatever suits their
pockets...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hehe you could say the same with guns. Actually no, a much higher
>> proportion of people use guns for legal activity :-)
>
> Hmm not really... Guns were *made for* killing.
And you really think it's a coincidence that bitTorrent was released at
almost exactly the same time Napster was closed down?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> (If the limit is in the T&C, then that's the limit they have to follow. If
> the T&C are more vague, they can cap you to whatever suits their
> pockets...)
For my mobile broadband, the usage is capped at 5GB per month, but after
that the speed is simply limited to 64kb/s. Seems pretty sensible to me as
there are no hidden charges and no sudden loss of connection.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> And you really think it's a coincidence that bitTorrent was released at
> almost exactly the same time Napster was closed down?
I was under the impression the original Bit Torrent paper was somebody's
final year project or something?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> (If the limit is in the T&C, then that's the limit they have to
>> follow. If the T&C are more vague, they can cap you to whatever suits
>> their pockets...)
>
> For my mobile broadband, the usage is capped at 5GB per month, but after
> that the speed is simply limited to 64kb/s. Seems pretty sensible to me
> as there are no hidden charges and no sudden loss of connection.
If all the ISPs say in the T&C what they're actually going to do, you
can shop around and find the one that's acceptable to you. I don't see
anything wrong with that.
I think that having a "hidden" cap that they don't warn you about to be
a rather unfair concept.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> > You demonstrate perfectly the kind of mentality. Limiting freedom of
> > speech is completely "acceptable" when the subject in question is taboo
> > enough.
> You *really* believe you have complete freedom of speech? What gives you
> the right to expect that? The general public expect that if you lie to an
> official, or tell others to commit crimes, or speak in a way that damages
> anyone else mentally, you should be suitably punished. I'd hate to live
> somewhere where those sorts of acts went unpunished.
You don't get the point. The point is that freedom of speech is more
limited now than it was eg. 20 years ago. And it's getting more and more
limited as time passes.
And we are not talking about lying and deceiving. We are talking about
*expressing your opinion*, which is a rather different thing. Today
expressing certain types of opinions is so taboo that even law enforcement
is trying to stop these thought crimes.
> > People are already being fined in many western countries for expressing
> > their opinion *without* causing any trouble.
> Care to give any examples?
A Finnish person posted an article in his blog citing, among other things,
official crime statistics performed by certain groups of people and using
words which some people consider derogatory (although whether they really
are or not is completely subjective and there's no official stance). He
was sued and fined, and forced to take the article off his blog.
(Having read the trial logs, the trial was more or less a farce. The
judge was astonishingly biased and basically ignored everything the defence
attorney and the suspect told.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> And you really think it's a coincidence that bitTorrent was released at
> almost exactly the same time Napster was closed down?
Napster closed down: July 2001.
BitTorrent paper released: April 2001.
First BT implementation released: 2 July 2001.
So you're seriously suggesting that somebody did all that R&D just to
illegally copy stuff?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> Hey, you can even cause massive disruption by protesting against your
> government, yet they do nothing, no fine, no arrests, no attempt to even
> stop the disruption. *That's* ludicrous IMO.
Not in the US. If your protests indeed disrupt the government, or
traffic, or so many other things, you get in trouble.
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>> Some ISPs started blocking it or throttling speed by detecting the
>> protocol.
>
> Now, see, if I paid money to access the Internet, and then my ISP tried
> to prevent me accessing the Internet, I'd be... quite upset.
Except that the TOS generally allows them to do it.
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Now, see, if I paid money to access the Internet, and then my ISP tried
>> to prevent me accessing the Internet, I'd be... quite upset.
>
> Except that the TOS generally allows them to do it.
Well then if the TOS says "you cannot use protocol X", you go find a
different ISP.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> So you're seriously suggesting that somebody did all that R&D just to
> illegally copy stuff?
Sure, if it means they can get loads of free music and movies. Human
nature 101.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz 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.
Disrupting traffic gets you in trouble for disrupting traffic, not for
protesting.
Unfortunately, I think a great number of on-the-street level cops are
taking their clues from the high administrations and simply ignoring the
law and misusing their privileges.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> It's a damned PROTOCOL. It can't be
>>> illegal on its own. It's how you use it.
>> Hehe you could say the same with guns. Actually no, a much higher
>> proportion of people use guns for legal activity :-)
>
> Hmm not really... Guns were *made for* killing.
And killing is very often legal. We call it hunting. Or being a soldier.
And, indeed, most of the guns not used for hunting or soldiering aren't
made for killing, but for intimidating.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well then if the TOS says "you cannot use protocol X", you go find a
> different ISP.
Unfortunately, choice is rather limited in most places, due to
government interference.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> So you're seriously suggesting that somebody did all that R&D just to
>> illegally copy stuff?
>
> Sure, if it means they can get loads of free music and movies. Human
> nature 101.
That's like sayin DARPA was commissioned to design a system for mass
porn dissemination! o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> So you're seriously suggesting that somebody did all that R&D just to
>>> illegally copy stuff?
>>
>> Sure, if it means they can get loads of free music and movies. Human
>> nature 101.
>
> That's like sayin DARPA was commissioned to design a system for mass
> porn dissemination! o_O
>
You mean it wasn't? XD
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
>> That's like sayin DARPA was commissioned to design a system for mass
>> porn dissemination! o_O
>>
>
> You mean it wasn't? XD
...this would radically alter my mental image of the US military. o_O
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> ...this would radically alter my mental image of the US military. o_O
>
Heh. I remember in just about every commissary and exchange there being
certain "top shelf" magazines available for purchase. Wouldn't change my
perception a bit ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
>>
>> ...this would radically alter my mental image of the US military. o_O
>>
>
> Heh. I remember in just about every commissary and exchange there being
> certain "top shelf" magazines available for purchase. Wouldn't change my
> perception a bit ...
So that's why there were so many weird pictures in FarCry then...?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ...this would radically alter my mental image of the US military. o_O
>>>
>>
>> Heh. I remember in just about every commissary and exchange there
>> being certain "top shelf" magazines available for purchase. Wouldn't
>> change my perception a bit ...
>
> So that's why there were so many weird pictures in FarCry then...?
>
? err What do you mean? (I've never played FarCry before) Now I'm afraid.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> So that's why there were so many weird pictures in FarCry then...?
>
> ? err What do you mean? (I've never played FarCry before) Now I'm afraid.
Lots of the mercenary camps have magazines scattered around with
scantily-clad ladies in them. At least, I *think* that's what those 12
pixels are supposed to represent... kinda hard to tell.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> So that's why there were so many weird pictures in FarCry then...?
>>
>> ? err What do you mean? (I've never played FarCry before) Now I'm afraid.
>
> Lots of the mercenary camps have magazines scattered around with
> scantily-clad ladies in them. At least, I *think* that's what those 12
> pixels are supposed to represent... kinda hard to tell.
>
Oh.. yep. thats why :) Those mags were very available on the base, but
you couldn't find them off base in the city I lived in, where I lived
was known as part of the "bible belt". But the base had all of the
hustler and playboy you could ever want.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz 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.
And as long as you don't leave the "free speech zone"? ;)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Mueen Nawaz 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.
>
> And as long as you don't leave the "free speech zone"? ;)
As I said, "supposed to". Yeah, it's pretty f'ing shameful around here
lately.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> And as long as you don't leave the "free speech zone"? ;)
Someone told me that the reason people used soapboxes to make speeches was
that there was a law that you couldn't speak against the government if you
were standing on the country's territory, or some similar wording. So they
stood on soapboxes to avoid touching the country's soil with their feet :)
I should probably check snopes.com about it right now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> That's like sayin DARPA was commissioned to design a system for mass
> porn dissemination! o_O
>
Excuse me?
"The Internet is for Porn" remember?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Or being a soldier.
"Legal" doesn't mean "good", but ok...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Now, see, if I paid money to access the Internet, and then my ISP tried
> to prevent me accessing the Internet, I'd be... quite upset.
But you signed a contract saying they're allowed to do such throttling ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well then if the TOS says "you cannot use protocol X", you go find a
> different ISP.
They don't say that.
All ISPs say "you can't pirate stuff over our networks" (duh).
Some ISPs say "we may block stuff if we think it's good for the network"
(and it is; the BitTorrent protocol is a significant percentage of many
ISPs' traffic, so blocking it would "help the network")
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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"?
You're suggesting that if they could find a way to prevent Congress
from going into session peacefully and indefinitely, then it'll be OK?
--
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:
> Unfortunately, choice is rather limited in most places, due to
> government interference.
Could you elaborate? In a few isolated places in the US, the choice is
limited because the companies sued whenever the government tried
providing free Internet...
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Well then if the TOS says "you cannot use protocol X", you go find a
> different ISP.
Which has the same clause in their TOS.
--
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:
> 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.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Or being a soldier.
>
> "Legal" doesn't mean "good", but ok...
I wasn't saying whether it was legal *or* good, but only why "guns were
made". Most cops go their entire careers without having to shoot
anyone, let alone kill them.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Could you elaborate?
Each community selects a provider for cable and for local phone service.
Just like you don't really get a choice of provider for water or
electricity, if you don't like your cable TV provider, you're pretty
well screwed in most areas.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> And we are not talking about lying and deceiving. We are talking about
> *expressing your opinion*, which is a rather different thing.
Like I said, fine so long as you don't cause any trouble with it (ie
blocking a road with a protest while you express your opinon loudly, or
persuading others to do some terrorist act, or damaging the image of some
other person or company for no reason, there are lots of reasons).
> A Finnish person posted an article in his blog citing, among other
> things,
> official crime statistics performed by certain groups of people and using
> words which some people consider derogatory
Publishing derogatory comments, especially when generalising about a certain
group of people is a very dangerous thing to do, and certainly not what most
people would call "without causing trouble".
If that's the worst (or best?) you can come up with, I think we're safe with
being free to express our opinions :-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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.
>
> Disrupting traffic gets you in trouble for disrupting traffic, not for
> protesting.
>
> Unfortunately, I think a great number of on-the-street level cops are
> taking their clues from the high administrations and simply ignoring the
> law and misusing their privileges.
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!
Mind you, the German police seem to take a very strong stance against anyone
who tries to protest violently against those nuclear waste trains. Someone
has chained or cemented themselves to the train tracks, no problem, where's
the angle grinder? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> That's like sayin DARPA was commissioned to design a system for mass
>> porn dissemination! o_O
>>
>
> Excuse me?
>
> "The Internet is for Porn" remember?
Sure, it is *today*. But when it was invented, high-resolution graphics
didn't even *exist*. :-P
I think it would be rather a stretch to claim that this was the design
goal. More like, any technology which can be used for porn will
inevitably be used for porn...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> I wasn't saying whether it was legal *or* good, but only why "guns were
> made". Most cops go their entire careers without having to shoot
> anyone, let alone kill them.
Where I'm from, "most cops" don't even *have* guns...
They do, however, have these wicked batton things that look pretty mean.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Where I'm from, "most cops" don't even *have* guns...
Hehe yeh, which is probably why I'm always a little disconcerted when I'm at
the airport and every cop has some automatic rifle about 50cm long held in
such a way that it looks like they're about to start shooting everyone. If
you look carefully above you will probably find another couple aiming down
at the crowds of passengers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> Where I'm from, "most cops" don't even *have* guns...
>
> Hehe yeh, which is probably why I'm always a little disconcerted when
> I'm at the airport and every cop has some automatic rifle about 50cm
> long held in such a way that it looks like they're about to start
> shooting everyone. If you look carefully above you will probably find
> another couple aiming down at the crowds of passengers.
o_O
That can't be good...
(Personally I've never seen *anybody* IRL with an actual firearm. Well,
unless you count an air rifle.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I think it would be rather a stretch to claim that this was the design
> goal. More like, any technology which can be used for porn will
> inevitably be used for porn...
It was the reason VHS won out over Beta. So, its entirely possible,
stories you hear otherwise are just invented to cover up that fact. We
know what they were /really/ thinking ...
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> (Personally I've never seen *anybody* IRL with an actual firearm. Well,
> unless you count an air rifle.)
I remember after 9/11 seeing lots of military types wandering the
airport with automatic rifles. Pretty freaky....
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scottcom> 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!
Fine, refuse to believe that people are being sanctioned for simply
expressing their opinion, with absolutely no violence involved.
--
- Warp
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.
There are thing which are now so "taboo" that it's completely "ok" if
they are not anymore included into the rights of free speech. These taboos
are being expanded little by little as time passes, and more and more
things are passing outside of the free speech right. But all this is ok.
It is, after all, a taboo, and everyone who dares to express their opinion
on them must be fanatic and violent and deserves to be punished.
--
- 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*.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
