Then let the market deal with it. If the Hungarian people - not the occasional lawmaker, but the actual people of Hungary - are that angered by red star imagery, let them handle it.
Carlsberg beer used to use a swastika as part of their logo. Then Hitler happened, and they dropped it for the duration of the war and never brought it back. And they weren't alone. Suddenly, because of its association with a murderous madman, using the swastika in marketing was massively unprofitable.
If the Hungarians are really that bothered and offended by the red star in the Heineken logo, they'll stop buying it. As a result, either they'll change the logo or withdraw from the market. Simple as that.
Either way, trying to censor the star on the bottle is either a solution in search of a problem or, more likely, a politician in search of a payday.
I get your meaning, but as the linked article points out, flashing lights in that context are a "signal... intended to convey a variety of messages". The flashing lights I referred to convey no message other than "I dislike you" in the same manner that a punch to the jaw would.
No, I understood your point. I just reject it as I find it to be entirely specious.
First off, while some may be harmed by an individual's speech, free speech is, itself, a benefit to them, as it means that they may express their views just as openly and without fear of restraint. And I use "harm" in the loosest of senses, as protecting people from emotional distress is not the kind of pressing national interest that a society that considers freedom important should be concerning itself with.
Second, as I pointed out, the issue was not the message sent by the tweet. The issue was the flashing lights, which were not any form of speech, as they conveyed no message or information at all. At best, they conveyed the message "I wish you harm" in the same manner that a gunshot would have.
Saying "You Deserve A Seizure For Your Posts" is speech, and I will vehemently defend a person's right to do so. Attempting to cause a seizure, even over the internet, is assault, and thus a crime. And, as the article shows, already recognized as such, thus no free speech questions are raised by this case.
A sequence of flashing lights, devoid of informational content is not speech. The message "You Deserve A Seizure For Your Posts" did not harm him. It was simply overlayed atop the repeated flashes. It is no different than if it was inscribed on a blade, and using a knife that has words on it doesn't make a stabbing speech.
Sure, Twitter is a vehicle for speech. And the image was transmitted to the target via Twitter. That doesn't mean that all aspects of the image count as speech. A car is also a vehicle for food delivery. That doesn't mean that everything transported in a car is a pizza.
Also, you're wrong. Free speech doesn't HAVE important benefits; free speech IS the benefit. The ability to exchange ideas, even repugnant ones, without fear of government restraint is essential to a free society. Period dot.
No, not really. Especially since there is a clear difference between the example of bullying someone into suicide and this case.
In the former case, we are discussing speech intended to cause a person to make a choice. Specifically, to end their life. Words hurt, to be sure, but it is an emotional hurt, which is qualitatively different from physical hurt.
In the latter, we are discussing exposing someone to an external stimulus intended to provoke a physiological response that would cause real and tangible harm to their body. That, according to the victim, did precisely that.
The fact that the offending image included the phrase "You Deserve A Seizure For Your Posts" doesn't make it a free speech question. There is no equivalency between the two examples. A more apt comparison would be that of a Neo Nazi stabbing someone advocating for racial equality with a knife that had "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" inscribed on the blade.
If non-literal copying becomes a thing in copyright law and ends up extended to fiction, then whoever's in charge of Joseph Campbell's estate is going to end up rich.
As a direct result of this incident, the TSA will issue a directive instructing their screeners to inspect all laptops for signs of explosives. However, being the TSA, they will be unable to find any laptops. Frustrated by this inability, the screeners will instead search your lap for signs of explosives.
What gets me about the Akai Gurley case is this: even if we accept the idea that his criminal record makes him getting shot okay - big if - there's still a problem. That means the narrative of the news piece is "don't worry about this latest screw-up. By pure chance, the officer managed to shoot someone who didn't matter."
In other words, even if you're okay with Gurley being dead, shouldn't you be concerned that cops in your town are shooting at random noises in the dark?
Actually, this explanation makes a fair bit of sense to me. At least from the perspective of the PD. First, it gives them a reason to set a financial bar to access that could weed out a fair number of requests. That's got to be appealing to them in this situation.
Second, if someone doesn't like what they find in the information they're given and thinks that they've either held something back or manufactured what they did give them, it lets them cover their asses. They can have someone from the firm stand up in front of a judge, if it gets that far, and say "no, this really is everything that fit their request, and here's why".
No, no... he's not picking on Beck for that. He's just following the old saying about how if you can't say anything nice, you shouldn't say anything at all. Like this:
As a professional journalist, Glenn Greenwald has journalistic integrity.
As a professional journalist, Glenn Beck... has a basement full of food.
Hey... something just occurred to me. Even if the 4th Amendment didn't apply to the military and intelligence agencies, shouldn't Posse Comitatus apply since the NSA is part of the Department of Defense?
Grunwald's opinion is that Julian Assange should die for publishing classified information. Mine is that he's a dick for saying so. He can have his opinion, and I can have mine. That's how this works.
It is. And, under their criteria, it was justified. Being named "Man of the Year" isn't an endorsement, or an accolade. It's Time's way of pointing out the person they think "for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year." In 1938, that was absolutely Adolf Hitler.
Maybe they think they're in a Tom Clancy novel. They could be talking about establishing it in the literary sense. At some point down the road, Jim Clapper's going to walk into the Oval Office and say to the President "there's this independent group of outside experts reviewing our surveillance efforts" so that the reader will know they exist.
I suspect she sees no problem with denying people their rights because they don't qualify as "real journalists" in her mind because they don't meet her definition of "real citizens" either. In Senator Feinstein's world, "real citizens" don't question authority.
The problem is that the secrecy budget will go the way of the fiscal budget. Rather than staying within the number of classifications allotted them, they will leave themselves a method by which they can go overbudget "for emergencies". It will likely involve approval from a higher authority, but that approval process will quickly devolve into being the rubber stamp they use to sign their blank cheques.
Meanwhile, a solution that was supposed to be major surgery becomes nothing more than a band aid they can point to and say "look! We did something! We solved the problem!"
On the post: Trademark Censoring: Hungary Considering Banning Heineken Red Star Trademark Because Communism
Re:
Carlsberg beer used to use a swastika as part of their logo. Then Hitler happened, and they dropped it for the duration of the war and never brought it back. And they weren't alone. Suddenly, because of its association with a murderous madman, using the swastika in marketing was massively unprofitable.
If the Hungarians are really that bothered and offended by the red star in the Heineken logo, they'll stop buying it. As a result, either they'll change the logo or withdraw from the market. Simple as that.
Either way, trying to censor the star on the bottle is either a solution in search of a problem or, more likely, a politician in search of a payday.
On the post: Man Actually Arrested For Assault With A Deadly Tweet
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Man Actually Arrested For Assault With A Deadly Tweet
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Man Actually Arrested For Assault With A Deadly Tweet
Re: Re: Re:
First off, while some may be harmed by an individual's speech, free speech is, itself, a benefit to them, as it means that they may express their views just as openly and without fear of restraint. And I use "harm" in the loosest of senses, as protecting people from emotional distress is not the kind of pressing national interest that a society that considers freedom important should be concerning itself with.
Second, as I pointed out, the issue was not the message sent by the tweet. The issue was the flashing lights, which were not any form of speech, as they conveyed no message or information at all. At best, they conveyed the message "I wish you harm" in the same manner that a gunshot would have.
Saying "You Deserve A Seizure For Your Posts" is speech, and I will vehemently defend a person's right to do so. Attempting to cause a seizure, even over the internet, is assault, and thus a crime. And, as the article shows, already recognized as such, thus no free speech questions are raised by this case.
On the post: Man Actually Arrested For Assault With A Deadly Tweet
Re:
Sure, Twitter is a vehicle for speech. And the image was transmitted to the target via Twitter. That doesn't mean that all aspects of the image count as speech. A car is also a vehicle for food delivery. That doesn't mean that everything transported in a car is a pizza.
Also, you're wrong. Free speech doesn't HAVE important benefits; free speech IS the benefit. The ability to exchange ideas, even repugnant ones, without fear of government restraint is essential to a free society. Period dot.
On the post: Man Actually Arrested For Assault With A Deadly Tweet
Re: Re: Re:
In the former case, we are discussing speech intended to cause a person to make a choice. Specifically, to end their life. Words hurt, to be sure, but it is an emotional hurt, which is qualitatively different from physical hurt.
In the latter, we are discussing exposing someone to an external stimulus intended to provoke a physiological response that would cause real and tangible harm to their body. That, according to the victim, did precisely that.
The fact that the offending image included the phrase "You Deserve A Seizure For Your Posts" doesn't make it a free speech question. There is no equivalency between the two examples. A more apt comparison would be that of a Neo Nazi stabbing someone advocating for racial equality with a knife that had "Meine Ehre heißt Treue" inscribed on the blade.
On the post: Man Actually Arrested For Assault With A Deadly Tweet
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: How Is 'Non-Literally Copying' Code Still Copyright Infringement?
Hero With A Thousand Lawsuits
On the post: Techdirt Crowdsourcing: How Will The TSA Idiotically Respond To The Laptop Terror Bomb?
Of course, they were planning to do that anyway.
On the post: Every Kill A 'Good' Kill: How Police And The Media Cooperate To Disparage The Dead
In other words, even if you're okay with Gurley being dead, shouldn't you be concerned that cops in your town are shooting at random noises in the dark?
On the post: Ferguson's Strategy Regarding Journalists: Charge Insane Fees For FOIA Requests
Re: Re:
Second, if someone doesn't like what they find in the information they're given and thinks that they've either held something back or manufactured what they did give them, it lets them cover their asses. They can have someone from the firm stand up in front of a judge, if it gets that far, and say "no, this really is everything that fit their request, and here's why".
On the post: Politico's Passive Aggressive Attack On Glenn Greenwald: 'History. Or Journalism. Or Treason. Or Something'
Re: Re:
As a professional journalist, Glenn Greenwald has journalistic integrity.
As a professional journalist, Glenn Beck... has a basement full of food.
On the post: Guy Who Wrote Legal Memos Defending US Torture Defends NSA Because It Takes Too Long To Obey The Constitution
On the post: Journalist For Time Magazine Announces His Eagerness To Defend US Drone Strike Killing Julian Assange
Re:
On the post: Journalist For Time Magazine Announces His Eagerness To Defend US Drone Strike Killing Julian Assange
Re: bastard!
On the post: Journalist For Time Magazine Announces His Eagerness To Defend US Drone Strike Killing Julian Assange
Re: Isn't Time Magazine...
On the post: White House Changing Its Story On James Clapper's Role In Independent Surveillance Review
On the post: Sen. Feinstein During 'Shield' Law Debate: 'Real' Journalists Draw Salaries
Re: Re: Special privilege
On the post: Government Considers Dissatisfaction With US Policies To Be A 'High Threat'
Re:
On the post: How To Solve Overclassification: Give Government Departments A Limited Annual 'Secrecy Budget'
Re: Not monetary, but numbered
Meanwhile, a solution that was supposed to be major surgery becomes nothing more than a band aid they can point to and say "look! We did something! We solved the problem!"
Next >>