The user 'tom' beat me to it, but I've long considered that the DMCA has subtle first amendment implications. I haven't taken the time to fully develop this thinking. Maybe someone else on the internet has done this already?
'Stephen T. Stone' somehow read my [anonymous] mind. My first thought was "thanks for the new personal filter item".
These days, too many, even judges (and so called judges), are generally kind of poor at evaluating information, arguments and such. For example, sometimes people judge statements based on how they would express the statement's intent, ignoring or deprioritizing its content. A sort of Empty Etiquette based judgment (though etiquette is often relevant). Worse, I've seen statement's attacked because of the lack of a bias or prejudice that the listener or reader prefers to be present and at least pretends to believe is objective.
At a casual glance I would say the amicus brief is in an acceptable tone because the lawsuit is about comedic statements.
...the court will simply reject the amicus brief as being unnecessary and unwanted at this stage...
Even if the court says this, the arguments by Murray's lawyers could have still influenced their thinking. The lawyers may be trying to bias the court.
I have often been told that without the power to oppress, bias against someone on the basis of race cannot be racism. And since black people don't have the power to oppress, they can therefore never be racist.
Bias, prejudice, bigotry, racism (and its mirror, "privilege") are real, disparate phenomenon with real disparate effects. You are trying to take the presumption of bigotry and call it racism, I imagine because racism is a powerful term that is useful to co-opt... "I have often been told that 2+2=4".
So what happens if you have a wealthy, politically connected African-American who has a real hate on for some poor white trailer trash somewhere? Is he racist?
No, that's not what racist means. This example scenario isn't very good (What is the nature of this hate? What triggered it?), but it doesn't matter. Possessing some other positive does not make the racial negative not exist. This wealthy AA has to use wealth to partially "work up to zero". Relative to the AA, the "white trailer trash" starts above zero ("privilege" is the mirror to racism), but is harmed by different but related realities.
The idea of reverse racism has "pure racism" as a major component.
The term racism refers to prejudice against a person because of their race,
Completely wrong. Bigotry is the closest term to what you're poorly describing. Prejudice is a process of mind, bigotry is social, racism is SYSTEMIC which manufactures the social and state of mind aspects (that's why it so destructive and reviled).
and it applies to a black man being prejudiced against a white man as accurately as it applies in the reverse.
This is a nonsensical "straw man". When a specific "black man" suffers from racism his response can be composed of any combination of things except he can NOT be racist. The system does not permit that outcome. He would be exposed to very little if any social pressure towards racial dominance attitudes, but there would be plenty of "self-loathing" pressures. And he could not be easily raised to adulthood to take on that mind set.
Ahem... having government around is no change to that. Or did you just forget all of the people still being murdered, raped, stolen from, lied to, cheated on, or taken advantage of.
Do you believe this? That's like saying games should have no rules because people still cheat.
You don't need a government to build roads, run an economy, exchange idea's, have trade, or be a peaceful society with the rule of law and benevolence.
Completely senseless. Is it just the word government you hate? Call it something else, then. Call it "Shmizmar" or whatever.
But you do when you need to take things from others, control them, and decide how society needs to live.
Government is a complex class of tool. If a particular manifestation of this tool is "off" it can be remolded through criticism, assessment, iterative progress or even revolution. This type of change usual considers real details of some kind, not broad ideology.
Your last paragraph is gibberish and misdirection.
I was very bothered by this story at first, but then began thinking more about it. If ISPs are permitted to mine your internet activity for profit, then would you prefer that they gave you a way to opt out of that mining, or would you prefer that they do it without giving you any recourse?
AT BEST, that would mean AT&T's idea would be less bad than some other action that could be taken. This is an unreasonable defense of extortion.
Example: I avoid Facebook and Google because they are so hostile to privacy. I've always told people I'd be willing to pay them an annual fee to use their services if they would just respect my privacy along the way. Here, AT&T is offering that sort of bargain, and in that sense, it's a good thing.
How much is privacy worth? I would reasonably call it priceless. AT&T (and many other entities) treats Contempt-of-Customer™ as profitable.
And it would have better optics if AT&T marketed this as a discount if you permitted them to invade your privacy, rather than a surcharge for you to opt out. Further, the surcharge they chose seems rather high.
The normal and/or reasonable pricing should be the privacy positive one. Otherwise, those with less wealth become fodder for voyeurs. How much is the presumption of privacy worth? Whatever the answer it is probably measured in one's soul.
But before you all decide that AT&T is doing something wholly objectionable, think about the fact that other ISPs might just quietly mine their customer's data without providing any opt-out whatsoever.
Moral and ethical reasoning graded on the curve. Perhaps the ISPs can collude amongst themselves to up the ante, then anything would be acceptable. Maybe an ISP's relationship with investors should overwhelm its relationship with those it serves. Just chase dollars in the absence or meaningful restraint.
Science states facts, but is movable as new information becomes available. Faith doesn't seem to have the same kind of flexibility, and a much stronger proclivity to deny any possibility not explicitly explained by their 'faith'. Science is wrong because a faith was established before all this science stuff was learned.
I mean no offense or hostility towards this commenter, however this is at best careless wording. Careful and knowledgable analysis would compare science and RELIGION (not faith). Science and religion both have a significant human factor and thus inherit very similar attributes, even if you consider them opposites (by definition and concept, opposites have plenty in common).
Both history and current events tells us that science does NOT always state facts because people don't always state facts. Religion has a somewhat narrower scope and purpose than science, but scientists seem to believe that science's scope is all encompassing which is incorrect and a little "faithy". The religious too often behave as if the purpose of religion is to confer authority and power to its adherents, a self-corrupting idea routinely contradicted by their own faith's true teachings.
...Anyway, that comment has multiple layers of wrong on it.
I know little about PETA. Something about throwing red paint on people, I think, and some stunts in the nude. But,
Maybe, just maybe, we should stop giving them the headlines they crave.
Should they be artificially ignored? Are they devoid of any important or relevant message? That description of the Media's appetites is accurate enough, isn't it?
This kind of thing reminds me of the way mafias are portrayed in movies, but using lawyers. Which then reminds of "rent seeking" type capitalist abuses, but using government.
From what I hear it is common for bigger entities to flat out steal from (and effectively bully) smaller ones. This seems to happen a lot in Hollywood, publishing and the music industry.
On 9/11 the word terrorist took on a high level of importance. It didn't take long for some to notice its meaning was poorly defined or flat out arbitrary. Plenty also began using it like a weapon, to manipulate and control. Especially when a word gains this level of social and emotional power it becomes important to use it more thoughtfully and receive it more carefully.
"Terrorist", by word or concept, is not nearly precise enough and does not have a popular, sufficiently coherent or vaild meaning that allows it to be used to parse difficult issues like this.
Judges certainly know the law (far better than me, at least), but I sometimes question their capacity for cohesive reasoning.
Neither you nor the anonymous coward you are supporting (if you are not the same person) realized I was critiquing the implied analysis not the etiquette. If you are making broad social commentary, passing judgment on people is counter-productive and analytically incompetent.
That whole comment was strange. It's not clear to me that this anonymous coward knows what he/she is talking about. It could be just cliches and rhetorical flourishes.
Some advice. Avoid, if you can, "poking" or judging people directly. Instead focus on actions, behavior, condition, etc.
Until you learn the lesson that citizens cannot avoid responsibility you are not capable of any additional lessons.
Hmm. OK? If being an "adult" has any meaning then adulthood has responsibilities. One can say: as adults we are, at best, not particularly guilty when considering a specific situation. Very few, if any, of us are truly innocent in any scenario. The ideas we adopt and disseminate, the conformity we accept, the evils we tolerate, the powers we use or misuse all mark us and mold us in various ways. I've suspected since I was a teenager that responsibility is complicated and popular understanding of it is willfully poor.
Like an addict, you must first recognize that you have a problem before we can begin to resolve it.
Shhhh! Just don't.
I have been telling you folks that every nation gets the government it deserves and recent even Obama said much the same.
When the weight of government is crushing you... the first person to blame is the one in the mirror.
Despite your appeal to authority, I see no reason to believe you understand anything...
I will only say that even when government is abusive to its people government is not as separate from the governed as it appears.
My current and only job is to get you to understand that.
So, your unemployed?
I cannot fight the masses of ignorants, I have to attempt to educate them first.
Everyone is ignorant. It is necessary that we do not build our world view directly out of ignorance. The first step is to sincerely care about "the masses" and their true condition instead of trying to set one's self up as their "superior".
Trump got elected for a reason, and you are part of that reason!
Probably true enough, but it seems unlikely that you know why.
I don't think this is careless or well-intentioned law making.
My guess is that this bill was crafted to satisfy three separate but overlapping motivations:
Aggressive imprisonment through "law and order" zealotry.
The desire to intertwine religious motivated ideology with US law making. The absurd and unnecessary fear of Sharia Law was obvious foreboding.
Power siphoning. Convert strong popular revulsion for pedophilia into a way to attack other freedoms (especially speech). It is almost certainly designed to be a slippery slope.
On the post: How The DMCA's Digital Locks Provision Allowed A Company To Delete A URL From Adblock Lists
Free speech
'Stephen T. Stone' somehow read my [anonymous] mind. My first thought was "thanks for the new personal filter item".
On the post: Complaint Filed Over Sketchy VPN Service
Re:
On the post: Bob Murray To Court: The ACLU Is Too Biased To File Its 'Eat Shit, Bob' Brief
Not so sure
These days, too many, even judges (and so called judges), are generally kind of poor at evaluating information, arguments and such. For example, sometimes people judge statements based on how they would express the statement's intent, ignoring or deprioritizing its content. A sort of Empty Etiquette based judgment (though etiquette is often relevant). Worse, I've seen statement's attacked because of the lack of a bias or prejudice that the listener or reader prefers to be present and at least pretends to believe is objective.
At a casual glance I would say the amicus brief is in an acceptable tone because the lawsuit is about comedic statements.
Even if the court says this, the arguments by Murray's lawyers could have still influenced their thinking. The lawyers may be trying to bias the court.
On the post: Winnipeg Man Has Vanity Plate Referencing Star Trek Recalled Over Complaints Of How Racist It Is
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: everywhere
Bias, prejudice, bigotry, racism (and its mirror, "privilege") are real, disparate phenomenon with real disparate effects. You are trying to take the presumption of bigotry and call it racism, I imagine because racism is a powerful term that is useful to co-opt... "I have often been told that 2+2=4".
No, that's not what racist means. This example scenario isn't very good (What is the nature of this hate? What triggered it?), but it doesn't matter. Possessing some other positive does not make the racial negative not exist. This wealthy AA has to use wealth to partially "work up to zero". Relative to the AA, the "white trailer trash" starts above zero ("privilege" is the mirror to racism), but is harmed by different but related realities.
On the post: Winnipeg Man Has Vanity Plate Referencing Star Trek Recalled Over Complaints Of How Racist It Is
Re: Re: Re: everywhere
The idea of reverse racism has "pure racism" as a major component.
Completely wrong. Bigotry is the closest term to what you're poorly describing. Prejudice is a process of mind, bigotry is social, racism is SYSTEMIC which manufactures the social and state of mind aspects (that's why it so destructive and reviled).
This is a nonsensical "straw man". When a specific "black man" suffers from racism his response can be composed of any combination of things except he can NOT be racist. The system does not permit that outcome. He would be exposed to very little if any social pressure towards racial dominance attitudes, but there would be plenty of "self-loathing" pressures. And he could not be easily raised to adulthood to take on that mind set.
On the post: How The ACLU's Fight To Protect 'Indecent' Speech Saved The Internet From Being Treated Like Broadcast TV
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you believe this? That's like saying games should have no rules because people still cheat.
Completely senseless. Is it just the word government you hate? Call it something else, then. Call it "Shmizmar" or whatever.
Government is a complex class of tool. If a particular manifestation of this tool is "off" it can be remolded through criticism, assessment, iterative progress or even revolution. This type of change usual considers real details of some kind, not broad ideology.
Your last paragraph is gibberish and misdirection.
On the post: How The ACLU's Fight To Protect 'Indecent' Speech Saved The Internet From Being Treated Like Broadcast TV
Re: Re:
Huh? Religion is short for organized religion and forms from pressures to organize. The original comment IS self-serving nonsense, though.
On the post: AT&T May Soon Return To Charging Broadband Subscribers More For Privacy
Re: Now let's just think about this
AT BEST, that would mean AT&T's idea would be less bad than some other action that could be taken. This is an unreasonable defense of extortion.
How much is privacy worth? I would reasonably call it priceless. AT&T (and many other entities) treats Contempt-of-Customer™ as profitable.
The normal and/or reasonable pricing should be the privacy positive one. Otherwise, those with less wealth become fodder for voyeurs. How much is the presumption of privacy worth? Whatever the answer it is probably measured in one's soul.
Moral and ethical reasoning graded on the curve. Perhaps the ISPs can collude amongst themselves to up the ante, then anything would be acceptable. Maybe an ISP's relationship with investors should overwhelm its relationship with those it serves. Just chase dollars in the absence or meaningful restraint.
On the post: AT&T May Soon Return To Charging Broadband Subscribers More For Privacy
Extortion
"That's some nice privacy you've got there. It would be unfortunate if something were to happen to it".
Well, at least you can pay for "protection" on that privacy.
On the post: Wisconsin Speech Bill Tries To Keep Universities Neutral On Public Policy Debates, Which Is Batshit Crazypants
Re: Re: Flintstones, meet the Flintstones...
I mean no offense or hostility towards this commenter, however this is at best careless wording. Careful and knowledgable analysis would compare science and RELIGION (not faith). Science and religion both have a significant human factor and thus inherit very similar attributes, even if you consider them opposites (by definition and concept, opposites have plenty in common).
Both history and current events tells us that science does NOT always state facts because people don't always state facts. Religion has a somewhat narrower scope and purpose than science, but scientists seem to believe that science's scope is all encompassing which is incorrect and a little "faithy". The religious too often behave as if the purpose of religion is to confer authority and power to its adherents, a self-corrupting idea routinely contradicted by their own faith's true teachings.
...Anyway, that comment has multiple layers of wrong on it.
On the post: Monkey Selfie Case Gets Even Weirder, As The Monkey's 'Next Friends' Are In A Criminal Dispute With Each Other
Re: PETA: Silly Is What We Do
I know little about PETA. Something about throwing red paint on people, I think, and some stunts in the nude. But,
Should they be artificially ignored? Are they devoid of any important or relevant message? That description of the Media's appetites is accurate enough, isn't it?
On the post: This Machine Kills Accountability: The Ongoing Persecution Of Good Cops
Strange
On the post: Copyright Trolls... But For Houses
Mafia
This kind of thing reminds me of the way mafias are portrayed in movies, but using lawyers. Which then reminds of "rent seeking" type capitalist abuses, but using government.
On the post: Copyright Trolls... But For Houses
Re: An architect who didn't sue....
From what I hear it is common for bigger entities to flat out steal from (and effectively bully) smaller ones. This seems to happen a lot in Hollywood, publishing and the music industry.
On the post: The Importance Of Defending Section 230 Even When It's Hard
Re: Re: Ahhh, Judges.
On the post: The Importance Of Defending Section 230 Even When It's Hard
Ahhh, Judges.
On 9/11 the word terrorist took on a high level of importance. It didn't take long for some to notice its meaning was poorly defined or flat out arbitrary. Plenty also began using it like a weapon, to manipulate and control. Especially when a word gains this level of social and emotional power it becomes important to use it more thoughtfully and receive it more carefully.
"Terrorist", by word or concept, is not nearly precise enough and does not have a popular, sufficiently coherent or vaild meaning that allows it to be used to parse difficult issues like this.
Judges certainly know the law (far better than me, at least), but I sometimes question their capacity for cohesive reasoning.
On the post: Theresa May Blames The Internet For London Bridge Attack; Repeats Demands To Censor It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ooohhhhh
On the post: Theresa May Blames The Internet For London Bridge Attack; Repeats Demands To Censor It
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ooohhhhh
That whole comment was strange. It's not clear to me that this anonymous coward knows what he/she is talking about. It could be just cliches and rhetorical flourishes.
Some advice. Avoid, if you can, "poking" or judging people directly. Instead focus on actions, behavior, condition, etc.
Hmm. OK? If being an "adult" has any meaning then adulthood has responsibilities. One can say: as adults we are, at best, not particularly guilty when considering a specific situation. Very few, if any, of us are truly innocent in any scenario. The ideas we adopt and disseminate, the conformity we accept, the evils we tolerate, the powers we use or misuse all mark us and mold us in various ways. I've suspected since I was a teenager that responsibility is complicated and popular understanding of it is willfully poor.
Shhhh! Just don't.
Despite your appeal to authority, I see no reason to believe you understand anything... I will only say that even when government is abusive to its people government is not as separate from the governed as it appears.
So, your unemployed?
Everyone is ignorant. It is necessary that we do not build our world view directly out of ignorance. The first step is to sincerely care about "the masses" and their true condition instead of trying to set one's self up as their "superior".
Probably true enough, but it seems unlikely that you know why.
On the post: Theresa May Blames The Internet For London Bridge Attack; Repeats Demands To Censor It
Re: ooohhhhh
"I don't like X. Find, conjure or amplify bad example of X. Invalidate all of X".
This is a type of Lying Logic™. The internet is full of people using dishonest arguments like this.
On the post: Congress 'Fixes' Child Porn 'Loophole' With 15-Year Prison Sentences For Teen Sexting
Good intentions?
I don't think this is careless or well-intentioned law making.
My guess is that this bill was crafted to satisfy three separate but overlapping motivations:
OA
Next >>