I Disagree With Shutting Down the Soapbox
-
Nice attempt at deflecting away from the argument - now you know we do indeed have legal protections that guarantee free speech :thumbsup: Not that that's going to change what you post on here one iota.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
now you know we do indeed have legal protections that guarantee free speech
No. I asked you for an example and you couldn't provide one. :doh:
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
now you know we do indeed have legal protections that guarantee free speech
No. I asked you for an example and you couldn't provide one. :doh:
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
I gave you two. Let me know how simply ignoring what people say when it proves you wrong works out for you.
-
I gave you two. Let me know how simply ignoring what people say when it proves you wrong works out for you.
Quote:
No-one has created a law saying we can't speak freely, ergo we have protected freedom of speech.
The problem is we clearly have different opinions on what free speech means.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
-
Quote:
No-one has created a law saying we can't speak freely, ergo we have protected freedom of speech.
The problem is we clearly have different opinions on what free speech means.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other. Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
No, we don't.
-
ZurdoDev wrote:
Show me another constitution that protects free speech.
Neither does yours :) Again this is your problem, you think the American way of doing things is the only way of doing things. Different countries have different legal structures and just because one country doesn't exactly mimic your legal structure doesn't mean they don't have your rights. You don't even understand your *own* laws, yet you are attacking the laws of other countries? Why should you need laws that tell you what you *can* do? Laws are for saying what you *can't* do and your 1st Amendment says the government *can't* impeded your right to speak - your implication that the US law protects your freedom of speech is an incorrect assumption on your part, the very premise of your argument is incorrect but I'll continue with the spirit of your argument. In the UK we have a common law "negative right" to free speech. No-one has created a law saying we can't speak freely, ergo we have protected freedom of speech. In addition to those century old rights we also have the more modern Human Rights Act which does explicitly grant freedom of speech, so we have both a "positive right" and a "negative right" to free speech.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
we also have the more modern Human Rights Act which does explicitly grant freedom of speech
Ask Tommy Robinson how his freedom of speech is going.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
We do as most countries do. But the system is that every newspaper (or other media) has a person that has personal responsibility over the content. And personally takes the punishment in case of breaking laws. But the newspaper remains in business.
Wrong is evil and must be defeated. - Jeff Ello
Jörgen Andersson wrote:
But the newspaper remains in business.
Because a part of a newspaper's business is to understand local laws regarding publication and to adhere to them. No different from any other company....you have to know the laws that affect you. Newspapers generally stick within those laws, and while they have been sued occasionally it is generally an editorial piece, or something where they did blatantly disregard the law such as the reporting over the Covington kids. The extreme left newspapers think that faux outrage places them above the law.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
we also have the more modern Human Rights Act which does explicitly grant freedom of speech
Ask Tommy Robinson how his freedom of speech is going.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013He was found guilty of committing acts that are not protected under freedom of speech laws. If you want to base an argument around ignoring the obviously implicit restrictions on "freedom of speech" laws in that not all speech is protected, then that's a pretty weak argument. Most reasonable people understand that slander, threats, inciting to violence, contempt of court and a whole raft of other things are not protected forms of speech, not in the UK, nor the US, nor anywhere else.
-
He was found guilty of committing acts that are not protected under freedom of speech laws. If you want to base an argument around ignoring the obviously implicit restrictions on "freedom of speech" laws in that not all speech is protected, then that's a pretty weak argument. Most reasonable people understand that slander, threats, inciting to violence, contempt of court and a whole raft of other things are not protected forms of speech, not in the UK, nor the US, nor anywhere else.
In the US, all speech is protected unless it explicitly provokes someone to commit a crime (like, "You must kill this person", or "You need to blow up this building."). Like I said, there is speech that might be unpopular (calling someone a racial slur, denying the holocaust, etc), but that speech is merely unpopular, not restricted. Thus, there's no such thing as "hate speech" (in the US).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
In the US, all speech is protected unless it explicitly provokes someone to commit a crime (like, "You must kill this person", or "You need to blow up this building."). Like I said, there is speech that might be unpopular (calling someone a racial slur, denying the holocaust, etc), but that speech is merely unpopular, not restricted. Thus, there's no such thing as "hate speech" (in the US).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013#realJSOP wrote:
In the US, all speech is protected unless it explicitly provokes someone to commit a crime
That's so patently untrue I really have to question why someone with such little understanding of the subject matter is contributing.
-
It makes CP self-cleaning, as the vast majority of crap that would otherwise appear elsewhere on the site has a place to be, kinda like the Indian-only forum. I think it's an ill-conceived notion that will blow back into the rest of CP.
I dunno. To be honest, Codeproject started out for me as an invaluable tool and repository of information as I learned my craft. It still is that, but I would rather see it return to its roots, and base itself on the provision of interesting and good quality articles. StackOverflow takes care of the Q&A style stuff, and any number of other forum sites can take care of the Trump-bashing, the Libtard-bashing, ranting about the Daily Mail, the NHS, climate change, climate change deniers... it's all devolved into the same pointless quackery and whataboutism. I agree with @ChrisMaunder in this; It has been dismaying to see, has nothing to do with the good intentions of the site, and reflects badly on it. I, too, have gotten sucked into stupid arguments from time to time, because it drives me nuts to see people who should be reasonably well adjusted human beings, with at least enough intelligence to hold down a job writing software, express what I consider to be ridiculous and idiotic opinions without saying a thing against it. I have a theory; Our profession, its attention to detail, the obsessive nature it fosters and rewards, actually turns people into maniacs when it comes to their opinions, being right on the internet, and generally not knowing when to walk away from an argument. This, I submit, is manifest in the Soapbox. I think the way the Soapbox has fostered degeneracy of this sort in the last few years is prima facie evidence that this stuff feeds on itself, sucks in energies that really should be spent elsewhere, and that we'd all be better off without it. Airing these opinions doesn't may allow people to "vent"; but the echo chamber just gets louder and louder and nobody gets anywhere. I understand your point of view on this, and IMHO, it probably conforms with a lot of your other views as well, if I might say.... ;P ;P :laugh: Basically, you think all forms of regulation are to be mistrusted and people should work out their own kinks. Fair enough, and broadly I agree with that principle. But this is not print media, or public access, or cable news, or anything that could be construed as public service, or an artifact of free speech. This is a programming website run as a private enterprise. I could take it or leave it, the Soapbox, but if 'twere me, I'd be more on the side of shutting it down, as I think it's just not making the site any better. Anyway. Just my 10 cents.
One morning I shot an elephant in my pajamas. How he got in my pajamas, I don't know.
