91–100 of 105 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apologies, I'll be less nuanced for you. Hitler would have got nowhere if he was mute.
I can't even tell if you two are actually disagreeing about anything, or just escalating for the pure joy of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the video is the problem. People's words, be they transferred by video, television, or just print, have inspired people to do things ranging from the horrendous to the amazing. Speech is not innocent, which is all the more reason to keep it free.
Essential liberties (e.g., USA Bill of Rights, etc.) have to appreciated dogmatically for them to remain intact. As soon as people enter into arguments about the utility and practicality of essential liberties, they begin to appear to validate the concerns of an oppressor. In other words, if you believe in your freedom, you should fight for it, not try to convince others of the pragmatic values of having it.
But I'm quite happy here with my unregulated Internet, 900 ISPs all over the country and 100/100 Mbps unlimited fiber connection with a 42 Mbps 3G fallback (there's also Gigabit fiber but it's just too fast :-)).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apologies, I'll be less nuanced for you. Hitler would have got nowhere if he was mute.
Hitler would also have gotten nowhere if there had not been lots of antisemitism, racism, nationalism and the urge to take revenge for the treaty of Versailles among german people. If Hitler would have been mute, he could still have written "Mein Kampf", he probably would not have done the speeches but could be easily replaced by Göbbels, Himmler or someone else. Contrary to a lot of contemporary documentaries and so…
And these things were also drummed up by years (or centuries) of propaganda.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"goad"? "facilitate"? What's the boundary?
Either of those, or "inciting", seem like reasonable boundaries when it is goading/facilitating/inciting specific illegal action.
Benched tries to explain humans to aliens, episode 122: "It was possible to compose pictures and sound coming from a screen in such a way that some people would consider it dangerous."
What if I don't agree with the UK government views on say freedom of speech? And why the UK government? What about giving that same power to the government of Afghanistan for example? From a utilitarian perspective, they could use that "superflagger status" to prevent the spread of videos that have lead to violence in the past. One simple example : http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/google-remove-riot-spa... Howev…
"Freedom of speech" means different things in different places. The First Amendment only means anything in the US. It isn't law in the UK.
As long as I see "This video was flagged by the UK government for terrorism" on the video, I'm ok with this. If terrorism was your reason, then own it. "We denounce this video because it is terrorism. Signed, the UK." Show that message to users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't even tell if you two are actually disagreeing about anything, or just escalating for the pure joy of it.
They're disagreeing about whether or not you're allowed to say anything bad about speech.