101–110 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you also going to renounce your citizen ship and leave the planet?
I renounce you at least. Bye
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Common…
Is the law really from 1743? I mean, it can make sense, but I would find it interesting if the law was really that old
> In 1738 the Commons fought back, declaring that it was a "high indignity and a notorious breach of privilege" to report what was said in the Chamber, even when it was in recess. [0]
[0] https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofp...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> political commentary sprinkled with humor. I think you're right about their shows, but both Hasan Minhaj and Samantha Bee are comedians, so why are we entrusting political commentary to comedians?
The same reason we trust it to anyone else. I’ve never understood the “he/she is a comedian therefore unfit to comment on serious matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. Copyright claims that result in reduced access to media are censorship.
As someone who has lived under a dictatorship, there is a difference. Laws in "democratic" countries and dictatorships don't differ so much. The difference is how they are enforced and what recourse you as a citizen have. In a dictatorship, the government rules that a show/film/song violates the law. No one not willing to go to jail challenges it. In a democracy, you are free to post a rant or picket because you disa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey, let's not overstep and say that dictators are "morally right" to stop free speech. Legally right, perhaps, but come now, Western democracies would laugh at saying decorators keeping peace is "moral". In fact, they'd argue the opposite. That dictators should morally step down and cede power to the people.
You are not in charge of “overstepping.” If dictators don’t stop free speech, a revolution will happen, and the country will go to shit. I have already given the precondition that the country is a dictatorship. We have the U.S.S.R., Arab Spring, and the French Revolution as fine examples of the country going to shit. If you’re a dictator and want to transition your country to democracy (I’m not sure why you’d call th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wall Street Journal says there were a record number of Shareholder lawsuits in 2017 for reasons including disappointing earnings. Nearly 10% of traded companies faced one that year. It kind of seems like “a thing.” https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-lawsuits-targeting-stock-dr... Edit: 2017, not this year
The number of filings is irrelevant: I can sue NASA for not building a space station on the moon, it doesn’t mean it won’t be thrown out. The article is paywalled so I can’t see if it reports the number that actually matters, i.e. wins.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not in charge of “overstepping.” If dictators don’t stop free speech, a revolution will happen, and the country will go to shit. I have already given the precondition that the country is a dictatorship. We have the U.S.S.R., Arab Spring, and the French Revolution as fine examples of the country going to shit. If you’re a dictator and want to transition your country to democracy (I’m not sure why you’d call th…
If free speech means 'going to shit', by all means, pour it on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a bit different in the U.K. official parliament footage isn’t allowed to be used for satire or anything other than news reporting. This was more of a copyright claim than censorship. They could literarily have broadcast the same thing with muppets instead of the official footage and that would’ve been ok and a large part of wishes they had done just that. “We wanted to show you footage from the House of Common…
> "This was more of a copyright claim than censorship." Why should taxpayer-funded creations be copyrighted? They should be in the public domain by default, like in the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_work_by_th...
This stuff is just generally odd.
First time I've heard of the show. I watched about 20 minutes ... pretty good. The style reminds me of Samantha B ... political commentary sprinkled with humor.
Personally, it's tiring and the information density is too low. And sometimes the logic of the analogy doesn't work, and they pretend the analogy proves something even though analogies never do, they can only be used to illustrate.
Oliver, Bee, all thr political comedy shows do the same thing. I can't figure out if I think Jon Stewart's show was better or if I was just younger and not tired of that style yet.