The USA, on the other hand, suppresses speech that isn't within prescribed parameters not by laws, but by the news media, by Congress and the Senate, and by sheer mouth-breather stupidity (remember Freedom Fries?).
How many people have been killed, tortured, and disappeared by American government and American organizations (the CIA, the Project for the New American Century, the Contras, heck even the United Fruit Company, to name but a few), for their views, for their speech, for their democratic choices?
Draw up your own list. I'll start: all of Central and South America, Vietnam, Cambodia, East Timor, Iraq, Afghanistan...
If I was an American, I wouldn't be so smug vis-à-vis Germany.
".. Europe has very different standards for free expression -- and Germany, in particular, has a long history of trying to suppress what it considers "bad" speech regarding some of its historical actions.."
While I realize that Mike's article is about the misplaced cost/effect of Germany's law(s), the comments here...
It's astounding that in this modern, well-informed age, someone has to go over the history, but considering how so many 'Mercans refuse to know anything about, well, anything...:
Europe as a whole, and Germany in particular, suffered much much from WWII. That war is the very reason why Europe, and Germany in particular, places a much greater value on privacy than, say, the USA.
Lives were saved because officials and regular people refused to provide personal information about their neighbours, their citizens - and these people paid dearly for doing the right thing. I suggest you read Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/black-ibm.html
The war, and Germany's role in it, are the reasons why hate speech is largely banned in Germany. Any German school child knows this.
Contrast this with the USA, which watched from the sidelines for the first two years of that war, was largely untouched by the war. It could be legitimately argued that the USA profited immensely from that war.
This lack of destruction, of suffering, of guilt (read Black's book, eh) by Americans in general is the reason why the American population has no qualms about bombing any country "back to the middle ages".
AC: "But a Chinese company, say, with no ties to the United States would not subject to this."
OK, so what happens when Microsoft, an American company, has "ties to" EU-member Ireland, by installing data servers there because of EU law, and when retrieving that data into the USA contravenes EU law? What then, eh?
Y'see, this kind of crap is why so many people hate the USA.
While refusing to submit to any other country's or any international body's decision or treaty (even those bodies that the US is a member of or a signatory to), other countries are expected to kowtow to US and US States' law and/or courts.
I don't think referring to things that have happened outside the USA would do any good.
There's a pervasive, hard and fast rule - which bears all the hallmarks of racism - prevalent in the American [not-]intelligentsia, that mandates that any idea which did not originate in the USA, no matter smart it is, can't even be up for consideration.
If it wasn't the case, you'd have smart incarceration polices and universal medicare by now.
So lemme see if I've got this straight: You'd rather put a child at risk than to have a law which protects them and has no effect whatsoever on your behaviour.
Re: Re: This is why we shouldn't have the death penalty
So... because the people are too lazy to demand accountability and integrity from police officers we should do "something else" instead?
Jeebus Farkin' Cripes! How do you even manage automatic breathing, eh?
Innocent people, lots of 'em, have been put to death by people you've elected. Nothing can fix those deaths but by moving that option off the table, it can be prevented in the future. Is that too difficult to understand?
They've had their chance with the very serious options, and they've shown over and over and over that they can't be trusted to use them responsibly, so they need to be taken away.
Thanks, and thanks to all the people who demonstrably showed that they understand my point.
Given the very really possibility that some people will put an inordinate amount of effort into making sure that they do NOT understand what point I was underscoring, I'll make it plain:
1) The original AC said: "Timmy has practically ZERO understanding of trademark law."
Really? And who are you who knows so much about trademark law?
An AC who was better, more experienced at drive-by trolling would have asserted, without identifying themselves, that they work in, no, they run the United States Patent and Trademark Office, THEN they would toss out an unsubstantiated opinion of "Timmy"'s expertise.
An opportunity missed.
2) Yeah, Roger, I too miss the Usenet newsgroups of old. Back in the '80s, I nearly fell off my chair when I read a respectful, detailed reply by Marvin Minsky to a user's question in talk.origins. (Or at least, I think it was Dr. Minsky.) Sigh, the good 'ole days, eh.
3) Obviously, I'm not the only one who's noticed that TD seems to have been flooded, for the last 1-2 years, by anonymous posters who don't want to discuss, help, correct/fix, nor elucidate, but simply create a hostile environment that's meant to drive people away and shut down the forum. Y'know, like Shiva Ayyadurai is doing via lawsuit.
In case all the ACs don't get it, the reason I'm an 'Insider' is that I've put money where my mouth is, by contributing to the TD defense fund. I think that the small contribution I've made is testament to the importance I give to the concept of 'free speech'. What have you'all done, eh?
4) As far all the difficulty, the tedium, the bother of 'managing' all those complicated and multiple logins everywhere. Sigh. Really? Ever heard of a password manager, FFS?
5) When I was living in Montreal, I used to listen to CBC's Radio Noon. CBC Radio One in Montreal, at less than 1% of the radio listenership, is pretty much the least-listened-to station in Montreal - unlike its sister french-language station, CBV-FM which regularly attains the top position for listenership.
The non-shouty-ness of the CBC and the complete absence of any commercial advertising, on the other hand, make Radio One (and other CBC Radio offerings) much more agreeable to listen to than anything else on Canadian airwaves, IMHO. I really, really feel sorry for the poor choices you Mercans have to put up with down there.
Whenever the topic of the day on Radio One's Radio Noon show was about Canadian federalism, the call-in would be flooded (taken over, really) by non-anglophone separatists who could barely structure an English sentence properly (by using French sentence structure). It was obvious that they had received a call to arms to attack.
I used to wonder, each and every time: "Do these people really think that they're able to fool anyone? Do they really think that we'll believe that they regularly listen to Radio One? Do they think we're idiots?"
So, to you, one of the hundred of Anonymous Cowards who seem to enjoy UN-identifiably arguing with each other (such that we can't track the argument) and hurling invective at other, infinitely more qualified and knowledgeable commenters here, all the while shouting incessantly, "First Amendment!", I say: Do any of you really think that any of us take your opinions seriously, take them as worth considering? Do you think that you have ANY CHANCE of suasion, of getting any return on all that spark and smoke you generate?
Freedom of Speech means nothing if no one is listening to you.
Y'know, I might take semi-seriously what one of the 147 'Anonymous Cowards' who like to pollute the comments section here on a regular basis, if they had enough cohones to at the very least, adopt an anonymous nom-de-plume.
And one too-clever thing the NLPC did was to state that More than 465,322 pro-net neutrality comments (close to one quarter of all comments submitted) come from email addresses that have submitted comments multiple times. In some cases, thousands of times.
See what they did there? Or rather what they didn't do? They didn't say how many or what proportion of all comments were faked anti-net-neutrality comments. I've read figures that more than 95% of the anti-net-neutrality comments were fake.
He would explain how it's done but the problem is that the patent application for the method was filled, er, next year. So until the Patent Office rubber-stamps the patent application, they're under an NDA.
On the post: Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don't Delete 'Bad' Speech
Re: Re: Re: Consider the histories...
Sorry, that sentence should have been written: "all countries of Central American, South America..."
On the post: Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don't Delete 'Bad' Speech
Re: Re: Re: Blasphemy Law
Either that or Newfoundland and Labrador.
On the post: Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don't Delete 'Bad' Speech
Re: Consider the histories...
Crap! Hit the wrong button...
The USA, on the other hand, suppresses speech that isn't within prescribed parameters not by laws, but by the news media, by Congress and the Senate, and by sheer mouth-breather stupidity (remember Freedom Fries?).
How many people have been killed, tortured, and disappeared by American government and American organizations (the CIA, the Project for the New American Century, the Contras, heck even the United Fruit Company, to name but a few), for their views, for their speech, for their democratic choices?
Draw up your own list. I'll start: all of Central and South America, Vietnam, Cambodia, East Timor, Iraq, Afghanistan...
If I was an American, I wouldn't be so smug vis-à-vis Germany.
On the post: Germany Officially Gives Up On Free Speech: Will Fine Internet Companies That Don't Delete 'Bad' Speech
Consider the histories...
".. Europe has very different standards for free expression -- and Germany, in particular, has a long history of trying to suppress what it considers "bad" speech regarding some of its historical actions.."
While I realize that Mike's article is about the misplaced cost/effect of Germany's law(s), the comments here...
It's astounding that in this modern, well-informed age, someone has to go over the history, but considering how so many 'Mercans refuse to know anything about, well, anything...:
Really, someone thinks North Korea is where Turkey is?
Europe as a whole, and Germany in particular, suffered much much from WWII. That war is the very reason why Europe, and Germany in particular, places a much greater value on privacy than, say, the USA.
Lives were saved because officials and regular people refused to provide personal information about their neighbours, their citizens - and these people paid dearly for doing the right thing. I suggest you read Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust. http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/black-ibm.html
The war, and Germany's role in it, are the reasons why hate speech is largely banned in Germany. Any German school child knows this.
Contrast this with the USA, which watched from the sidelines for the first two years of that war, was largely untouched by the war. It could be legitimately argued that the USA profited immensely from that war.
This lack of destruction, of suffering, of guilt (read Black's book, eh) by Americans in general is the reason why the American population has no qualms about bombing any country "back to the middle ages".
On the post: DOJ Asks The Supreme Court To Give It Permission To Search Data Centers Anywhere In The World
Re:
AC: "But a Chinese company, say, with no ties to the United States would not subject to this."
OK, so what happens when Microsoft, an American company, has "ties to" EU-member Ireland, by installing data servers there because of EU law, and when retrieving that data into the USA contravenes EU law? What then, eh?
On the post: DOJ Asks The Supreme Court To Give It Permission To Search Data Centers Anywhere In The World
Y'see, this kind of crap is why so many people hate the USA.
On the post: Australia To Push For Encryption Backdoors At Next 'Five Eyes' Meeting
Re: Alright, pretend I'm George Brandis:
Why not ask all the experts who have already testified, to a one, to Congress to this effect? Their testimony is public and free to download.
On the post: Australia To Push For Encryption Backdoors At Next 'Five Eyes' Meeting
Re: Re: Re: - Grenfell fire
There's a pervasive, hard and fast rule - which bears all the hallmarks of racism - prevalent in the American [not-]intelligentsia, that mandates that any idea which did not originate in the USA, no matter smart it is, can't even be up for consideration.
If it wasn't the case, you'd have smart incarceration polices and universal medicare by now.
On the post: Colorado Voters Will Get A Chance To Prevent Preteens From Using Smartphones
Re: Re: Re:
You'd rather put a child at risk than to have a law which protects them and has no effect whatsoever on your behaviour.
Way to go, eh.
On the post: Pakistan Sentences First Person To Death Over Social Media Posts
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/pl/cuol-mgnl/c51.html
On the post: Facial Recognition Software Brings Personalized Ads To The Supermarket
Re: Counter measures
On the post: Sheriff Defends Deputies' Lies In Court By Saying Officers Didn't Know They Were Supposed To Tell The Truth
Re: Re: This is why we shouldn't have the death penalty
So... because the people are too lazy to demand accountability and integrity from police officers we should do "something else" instead?
Jeebus Farkin' Cripes! How do you even manage automatic breathing, eh?
Innocent people, lots of 'em, have been put to death by people you've elected. Nothing can fix those deaths but by moving that option off the table, it can be prevented in the future. Is that too difficult to understand?
They've had their chance with the very serious options, and they've shown over and over and over that they can't be trusted to use them responsibly, so they need to be taken away.
On the post: Colorado Voters Will Get A Chance To Prevent Preteens From Using Smartphones
Re:
http://wfla.com/2017/06/20/sebring-mom-who-let-snake-bite-baby-wont-be-prosecuted/
On the post: Kellogg's Takes Australian Tennis Player To Court For Branding Himself 'Special K'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Thanks, and thanks to all the people who demonstrably showed that they understand my point.
Given the very really possibility that some people will put an inordinate amount of effort into making sure that they do NOT understand what point I was underscoring, I'll make it plain:
1) The original AC said: "Timmy has practically ZERO understanding of trademark law."
Really? And who are you who knows so much about trademark law?
An AC who was better, more experienced at drive-by trolling would have asserted, without identifying themselves, that they work in, no, they run the United States Patent and Trademark Office, THEN they would toss out an unsubstantiated opinion of "Timmy"'s expertise.
An opportunity missed.
2) Yeah, Roger, I too miss the Usenet newsgroups of old. Back in the '80s, I nearly fell off my chair when I read a respectful, detailed reply by Marvin Minsky to a user's question in talk.origins. (Or at least, I think it was Dr. Minsky.) Sigh, the good 'ole days, eh.
3) Obviously, I'm not the only one who's noticed that TD seems to have been flooded, for the last 1-2 years, by anonymous posters who don't want to discuss, help, correct/fix, nor elucidate, but simply create a hostile environment that's meant to drive people away and shut down the forum. Y'know, like Shiva Ayyadurai is doing via lawsuit.
In case all the ACs don't get it, the reason I'm an 'Insider' is that I've put money where my mouth is, by contributing to the TD defense fund. I think that the small contribution I've made is testament to the importance I give to the concept of 'free speech'. What have you'all done, eh?
4) As far all the difficulty, the tedium, the bother of 'managing' all those complicated and multiple logins everywhere. Sigh. Really? Ever heard of a password manager, FFS?
5) When I was living in Montreal, I used to listen to CBC's Radio Noon. CBC Radio One in Montreal, at less than 1% of the radio listenership, is pretty much the least-listened-to station in Montreal - unlike its sister french-language station, CBV-FM which regularly attains the top position for listenership.
The non-shouty-ness of the CBC and the complete absence of any commercial advertising, on the other hand, make Radio One (and other CBC Radio offerings) much more agreeable to listen to than anything else on Canadian airwaves, IMHO. I really, really feel sorry for the poor choices you Mercans have to put up with down there.
Whenever the topic of the day on Radio One's Radio Noon show was about Canadian federalism, the call-in would be flooded (taken over, really) by non-anglophone separatists who could barely structure an English sentence properly (by using French sentence structure). It was obvious that they had received a call to arms to attack.
I used to wonder, each and every time: "Do these people really think that they're able to fool anyone? Do they really think that we'll believe that they regularly listen to Radio One? Do they think we're idiots?"
So, to you, one of the hundred of Anonymous Cowards who seem to enjoy UN-identifiably arguing with each other (such that we can't track the argument) and hurling invective at other, infinitely more qualified and knowledgeable commenters here, all the while shouting incessantly, "First Amendment!", I say: Do any of you really think that any of us take your opinions seriously, take them as worth considering? Do you think that you have ANY CHANCE of suasion, of getting any return on all that spark and smoke you generate?
Freedom of Speech means nothing if no one is listening to you.
On the post: Kellogg's Takes Australian Tennis Player To Court For Branding Himself 'Special K'
Re: Re:
Y'know, I might take semi-seriously what one of the 147 'Anonymous Cowards' who like to pollute the comments section here on a regular basis, if they had enough cohones to at the very least, adopt an anonymous nom-de-plume.
On the post: Report Falsely Blames The EFF For Fraudulent Net Neutrality Comments
Re:
And one too-clever thing the NLPC did was to state that More than 465,322 pro-net neutrality comments (close to one quarter of all comments submitted) come from email addresses that have submitted comments multiple times. In some cases, thousands of times.
See what they did there? Or rather what they didn't do? They didn't say how many or what proportion of all comments were faked anti-net-neutrality comments. I've read figures that more than 95% of the anti-net-neutrality comments were fake.
On the post: How Document-Tracking Dots Helped The FBI Track Down Russian Hacking Doc Leaker
Re: Re: Wikileaks would have scrubbed the documents properly.
Thanks for the correction.
On the post: How Document-Tracking Dots Helped The FBI Track Down Russian Hacking Doc Leaker
Wikileaks would have scrubbed the documents properly.
/always have someone who understand technology and security on staff
On the post: Copyright Law In Europe Could Be About To Get Ridiculously Stupidly Bad In Ways That Will Undermine The Internet
Re:
Just go back and read (note, I didn't say 'reread') pretty all he's written about this area of law and policy for the last, oh, fifteen years.
If that's too much work for you, then maybe just the last two years.
If that's too much work for you, then maybe just the last six months.
If that's too much work for you, then don't bother commenting.
On the post: Copyright Troll's Tech 'Experts' Can Apparently Detect Infringement Before It Happens
Re:
Next >>