Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want: * Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or * A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want: * Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or * A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
See, but here's the thing. Irresponsible speech that promotes violence will always lead to suppression. You 4chan jackoffs knew this a long time ago, but thought that it was more important to be edgelords and have lulz than it was to be responsible. So now, you reap the whirlwind and spoil it for every
Does it say we get free speech as long as we're "responsible" with it?
Encouraging violence is not speech.
Speech that does not tell people to be violent cannot incite violence. If someone decides to engage in violence over an idea, they're morons responsible for their own actions.
Blaming other people for your behavior is childish. Justifying tyranny because someone blamed words for their actions is just as absurd.
by Anonymous Coward writes:
on Tuesday April 02, 2019 @08:14PM (#58375320)
By your logic you'd be 100% ok with someone purchasing a billboard on the lot next to your house that says "Here is KelvinB's phone number, place of employment, and daily schedule. He rapes children every day and will come for yours next!". And if anything happens to you or your family, the person who bought the billboard is 100% ok in your book; the blame solely lies on whatever wackjob believed the billboard.
The only problem in your scenario is the whackjob that could hurt you.
The problem is the whackjob; rather than attacking the whackjobs, you're attacking the next easier target, which is a terrible way to foster a robust community.
Felson's Law:
To steal ideas from one person is plagiarism; to steal from
many is research.
Good (Score:1, Insightful)
I see no problem here (except with some employees who are complaining, who should probably be fired).
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed. Which standard do you, gentle Slashdot read, want:
* Videos that people want to put up, and that people want to see; or
* A curated selection of videos that are best for you, as judged by your betters
We know that oppressive governments the world round demand the second option. Which should you demand?
"To know who rules you, ask: who am I not allowed to criticize in public? Those are your rulers."
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
See, but here's the thing. Irresponsible speech that promotes violence will always lead to suppression. You 4chan jackoffs knew this a long time ago, but thought that it was more important to be edgelords and have lulz than it was to be responsible. So now, you reap the whirlwind and spoil it for every
Where in the constitution... (Score:2)
Does it say we get free speech as long as we're "responsible" with it?
Encouraging violence is not speech.
Speech that does not tell people to be violent cannot incite violence. If someone decides to engage in violence over an idea, they're morons responsible for their own actions.
Blaming other people for your behavior is childish. Justifying tyranny because someone blamed words for their actions is just as absurd.
Re:Where in the constitution... (Score:0)
By your logic you'd be 100% ok with someone purchasing a billboard on the lot next to your house that says "Here is KelvinB's phone number, place of employment, and daily schedule. He rapes children every day and will come for yours next!". And if anything happens to you or your family, the person who bought the billboard is 100% ok in your book; the blame solely lies on whatever wackjob believed the billboard.
Do you realize how insane that sounds?
It doesn't sound insane at all. (Score:0)
The only problem in your scenario is the whackjob that could hurt you.
The problem is the whackjob; rather than attacking the whackjobs, you're attacking the next easier target, which is a terrible way to foster a robust community.