 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 5:19 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 3/17/2012 6:10, Stephen wrote:
>> Maybe in theory but, as far as I can see, not in practice.
>
> Mostly in practice, too.
>
I agree, mostly. (I am not taking a dig at Americans.) But mostly
implies sometimes not, I think.
>> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abortion?
>
> Any politician who isn't running for office next term. Having free
> speech doesn't mean you're not responsible for the results of what you say.
>
Fair point. But why?
>> Who could think of publicly saying that black people were inferior to
>> whites, even though they believed it?
>
> Any number of talk show hosts?
>
>
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/03/dont-re-nig-in-2012-maker-of-racist-anti-obama-sticker-shuts-down-site/
>
>
> The KKK?
>
I stand corrected.
>> America also has laws against Hate Crime which include verbal abuse or
>> insults, or offensive graffiti or letters.
>
> I'd like to see a cite of that. There are "hate crime" laws, but you
> have to be breaking a law in the first place for it to be a hate crime.
>
I accept that as you live there.
[Snip]
>
>> I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit a
>> crime
>> is, in my opinion, generally wrong.
>
> Abuse? Offend? I don't get to say something you don't want to hear?
>
Does that include bullying?
> Just like playing D&D is fine
> until you actually go out in the real world and start beheading dwarves.
>
Not the same thing.
> > Wasn’t Matt Giwer banned from this site
>> for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG at the time
>> when it was an unanimously supported action to do it?
>
> This is a private forum. It's no more censorship to say "you can't say
> that on the forum I run" than it is to say "you can't have a party in my
> house" means you're violating the right to assembly.
>
With this you miss my point. In 2000, Uncle Ken wrote “It is with regret
that this message serves as official notice that Matt Giwer's
authorization to connect to news.povray.org has been revoked. This is a
unanimously supported action on the part of the News Server
Administration and was not done without considerable deliberation on our
part.”
I asked Warp if he agreed with that at the time and if he had changed
his mind.
>> I am not saying that Free Speech is bad. I am saying that Free Speech
>> is a
>> misunderstood concept and is unworkable in a civilised society.
>
> I disagree. I think free speech limited to speech is fine. As soon as
> you start saying "Free speech is ok as long as nobody objects", then
> it's not free speech.
>
But I am not saying free speech is OK.
>>> When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
>>> speech. That's totalitarianism.
>>>
>>
>> That is a different kettle of fish.
>
> Why? Didn't you just say that speech that offends shouldn't be free?
>
Is that not a straw man?
I will take a different tack to try to explain what I mean.
Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not?
Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want.
The laws of slander would be unworkable if you were allowed free speech.
Which, I suppose, depends on your definition of free speech. What is yours?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/03/2012 5:23 PM, Darren New wrote:
> On 3/17/2012 9:30, Stephen wrote:
>> Free Speech would allow that.
>
> Yeah, as long as you don't *actually* go kill them.
>
> I'm against war, too, but I think if a country's leadership has a
> country's army attack my country, my country's leadership should send my
> country's army to attack back. Even tho they'll likely end up killing
> people who had no say in the manner in their own country.
>
Woosh! That went over my head.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2012 11:43, Stephen wrote:
> I agree, mostly. (I am not taking a dig at Americans.) But mostly impli
es
> sometimes not, I think.
Sure. But to the extent that it isn't, it's recognised as a bad thing.
It's like me saying "bribery is illegal" and you saying "but people still
bribe politicians." Sure, but that's not a *good* thing. That doesn't me
an
we want to condone it.
>>> Which politician would think of publicly admitting to condoning abort
ion?
>>
>> Any politician who isn't running for office next term. Having free
>> speech doesn't mean you're not responsible for the results of what you
say.
>
> Fair point. But why?
Why what?
>>> I know what it means but incitement to riot, abuse, offend or commit
a
>>> crime
>>> is, in my opinion, generally wrong.
>>
>> Abuse? Offend? I don't get to say something you don't want to hear?
>>
> Does that include bullying?
Some people are certainly hoping to make it so. I think we would have to
distinguish mocking from bullying, since when I was a kid, bullying someo
ne
involved beating them up, not just calling them names.
>> Just like playing D&D is fine
>> until you actually go out in the real world and start beheading dwarve
s.
>
> Not the same thing.
Ah, OK. So now, tell me why they're not the same thing. That's the point.
:-)
The problem is that once you open the door and say "Well, we don't want
people 'bullying' dwarves", you start getting the sort of nonsense where
people publishing D&D books get arrested.
>> > Wasn’t Matt Giwer banned from this site
>>> for expressing verbal abuse? And were you not a member of TAG at the
time
>>> when it was an unanimously supported action to do it?
>>
>> This is a private forum. It's no more censorship to say "you can't say
>> that on the forum I run" than it is to say "you can't have a party in
my
>> house" means you're violating the right to assembly.
>>
>
> With this you miss my point.
I still don't see your point. Anyway, I think Warp answered you.
I'll support your right to say that niggers are stupid. I'll also support
the black guy kicking you out of his party for saying so.
>> I disagree. I think free speech limited to speech is fine. As soon as
>> you start saying "Free speech is ok as long as nobody objects", then
>> it's not free speech.
>
> But I am not saying free speech is OK.
So you want to regulate *all* speech? Or do you want to have a pre-define
d
list of things you're allowed to talk about, and the opinions you're allo
wed
to express about those topics?
>>>> When only "politically correct" opinions are legal, that's not free
>>>> speech. That's totalitarianism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is a different kettle of fish.
>>
>> Why? Didn't you just say that speech that offends shouldn't be free?
>>
> Is that not a straw man?
Not to my knowledge.
> I will take a different tack to try to explain what I mean.
> Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not?
Free speech allows you to express whatever opinions you like. It doesn't
allow you to publish lies about private citizens. You're certainly allowe
d
to say "I think Joe Bloggs is a paedophile."
> Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want
. The
> laws of slander would be unworkable if you were allowed free speech.
> Which, I suppose, depends on your definition of free speech. What is yo
urs?
You're allowed to say anything that's true, certainly. If it's phrased as
an
opinion, you're allowed to express that opinion. I believe in the USA you
're
even allowed to publish lies about a public figure, on the grounds that a
public figure has a forum under which to express the truth. You publishin
g a
newspaper article that incorrectly says they are a pedophile about someon
e
who has no easy way of responding in the same forum is what's slander or
libel. But in the USA, truth is an absolute defense against the accusatio
n
of slander or libel. (Unlike the UK, as I understand it. You wouldn't be
allowed to say Bloggs is a pedophile even if it's true in the UK.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Em 17/03/2012 15:43, Stephen escreveu:
> I will take a different tack to try to explain what I mean.
> Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not?
> Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want.
BTW, it never entered my logical programming mind moot statements such
as that. Someone comes up to you and say "You're an asshole!" and
you're supposed to be offended? Let's take at look at it of both sides:
1) you're an asshole. Why should you be offended with the truth?
2) you're not an asshole. Why should you be offended by a liar telling
a lie?
Yes, I'm aware it probably has to do with what others think of you, but
what others think of me is not really my concern: I have not much voice
about what they should think of me besides trying to appease both greeks
and trojans.
In other words, the only answer to that is Wu.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not?
> Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want.
And where exactly would you draw the line?
You see how this is going to the direction of "if someone gets offended,
it should be illegal", which in turn makes almost everything illegal, which
in turn is completely unworkable.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 18/03/2012 6:39 AM, Warp wrote:
> Stephen<mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> Should I be able to say that Joe Bloggs is a paedophile when he is not?
>> Having free speech would allow me to do so as I can say whatever I want.
>
> And where exactly would you draw the line?
>
> You see how this is going to the direction of "if someone gets offended,
> it should be illegal", which in turn makes almost everything illegal, which
> in turn is completely unworkable.
>
I have really not made myself clear on this.
I am not an advocate for restricting what people say. I got side lined
To start at the beginning. I think that free speech whether it be verbal
or written is something that is impossible to have. It is a nice concept
but impractical, governments cannot allow it. State secrets for one
thing make it very hard for any government to allow you to say whatever
you want. Slander and libel laws are in opposition to free speech.
Get my drift?
When a government wants to change things in their country they can pass
laws. Or in the UK "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an
offence in 1986 (I think that this is a good thing but it could be
abused as all laws can). Since the act, race relations in the UK have
been better, as far as I can see. At least as far as I can see.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/16/2012 8:49 AM, Warp wrote:
> OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?
The non-criminal definition was something like, "the use of computer
skills or knowledge that is obtained by an informal means." An example
could be learning the features or capabilities of a system by a method
of trial-and-error (i.e., writing code and seeing what it does).
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Em 18/03/2012 14:41, John VanSickle escreveu:
> On 3/16/2012 8:49 AM, Warp wrote:
>
>> OTOH, how do you define "hacking"?
>
> The non-criminal definition was something like, "the use of computer
> skills or knowledge that is obtained by an informal means." An example
> could be learning the features or capabilities of a system by a method
> of trial-and-error (i.e., writing code and seeing what it does).
http://www.jargon.8hz.com/html/meaning-of-hack.html
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 3/17/2012 18:08, nemesis wrote:
> 1) you're an asshole. Why should you be offended with the truth?
> 2) you're not an asshole. Why should you be offended by a liar telling a lie?
The problem comes when you start getting statments like "Fred is a bad
credit risk", or "Joe is an awful dentist who cheats you by telling you your
teeth need work that they don't." It's more a matter of reputation.
And of course irrational people *will* get offended if you tell them their
god is a myth, for example, so you can't be having laws that say you're not
allowed to offend people.
But sure, face-to-face insults? I agree 100%
> In other words, the only answer to that is Wu.
I think you're after "Mu", not "Wu".
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
"Don't panic. There's beans and filters
in the cabinet."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Em 18/03/2012 23:25, Darren New escreveu:
>> In other words, the only answer to that is Wu.
>
> I think you're after "Mu", not "Wu".
oh, seems got that reversed. :p
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
