91–98 of 98 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But your post makes me feel genearlly harassed, how can I know when I am just uncomfortable or annoyed?
Could you please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Nobody who knew Sarah Pailin would mistake an actress for her. "During a segment on whether Palin will run for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, [Fox News] aired a photo of Fey posing as the former Alaska governor." https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/fox-news-mistakenl... So ya, people who did know her image very well did in fact mistake an image of the actor Tina Fey for the real Sarah Palin. It…
No, they were just sloppy. Wrong graphics were common enough that Fox management had to write grumpy memos about it. You're basing your argument on a hook sentence from a tabloid. Nobody thought they made the mistake because they couldn't tell them apart.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, they were just sloppy. Wrong graphics were common enough that Fox management had to write grumpy memos about it. You're basing your argument on a hook sentence from a tabloid. Nobody thought they made the mistake because they couldn't tell them apart.
What about the "I can see Russia from my house" line? A ton of people believed (and some likely still believe) that Palin said that. She didn't. Tina Fey said that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment is almost entirely wrong. "Fire in a crowded theater" is trope which means the First Amendment does not protect speech that is very likely going to cause imminent harm. It has nothing whatsoever to do with property rights. It is a "trope" because in rhetoric, it almost always used incorrectly to justify First Amendment exceptions which have nothing to do with imminent harm. Also, in the US, if you are in…
> Also, in the US, if you are in public a photographer can take a photo of you and publish it. You have no "property rights" over the photo whatsoever. Not a lawyer, so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you have the right to prevent your image from being used to endorse a product without your permission.
For everyone saying this is a violation of the 1st amendment - The 1st only extends to what you can say on your personal property . There is a reason you can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, it's because you are infringing on the property rights of the people who bought a ticket to the movie, and the landloard who is expected to keep everyone safe. You don't have any property rights to any other human other than y…
You are legally allowed to yell "FIRE" in a movie theater. The idea you're not is a myth from a early 1900s supreme court ruling. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...
So it's a "myth" only in the sense that it is a sure marker of a dishonest argument: if someone uses it in speech, they are almost certainly using it to try to justify something which is not the same thing at all.
> The new law amends existing law in the Commonwealth that defines distribution of nudes or sexual imagery without the subject's consent —often called revenge porn —as a Class 1 misdemeanor. The new bill updated the law by adding a category of "falsely created videographic or still image" to the text. This is a strange law: > Any person who, with the intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate, maliciously disseminates o…
2: legal
3: legal, unless there's intent to coerce, harass, or intimidate which would tip it into being illegal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Harrassment is a crime in most places. It doesnt really fall under free speech.
But your post makes me feel genearlly harassed, how can I know when I am just uncomfortable or annoyed?
Harassment is not a new thing. It is covered in multiple different situations.
Courts and juries and judges handle this stuff all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimers are useless because people strip them when they repost the image
Make stripping disclaimers illegal? Like stripping copyright claims. Removing the disclaimers is in most cases breaking copyright anyway. It does not count as a remix. It does not count as a quotation and definitely not as archival. That bit is easy to detect most of the time...