Are you implying that the University was showing American Sniper in the same way (i.e. as an example of the mentality/mindset of "the enemy"). I doubt it. Unless this is what you are implying, this is a straw man.
I think what the library is getting at here is exactly what you stated. If a book has a single complaint (or even multiple), but has been checked out hundreds of times, that is not a very high complaint ratio, so the majority of the public must not have a problem with it.
Although this isn't necessarily a defense of appropriateness, it does show that the individual who requested the removal has a different barometer for appropriateness than the majority of the library-going public.
Just so I understand, are you implying that part of this freedom does NOT include the right to urge them to change their name.
I agree with you, in theory, that a company should be able to run themselves as they see fit and we, the people, should determine how well they perform in their business. However, I would argue that in addition to not frequenting their establishment, part of my rights would include doing whatever I can to influence them to change their product.
Seriously, your proof is the Skousen list? A list that has no evidence to back it up, written by a conspiracy theorist nutjob at a time when the Red Scare was still at its height.
@John Fenderson,
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Not just that it's none of their business, but also on the complexity issues. However, I think claiming that taking the deduction is tantamount to instructing the government to donate in your stead is a bit disingenuous. That would only be true if you were taking a tax credit. A deduction, on the other hand, just prevents them from taxing you on that amount. Also, if you took the deductions, you could afford to give 12% or even more to charity, because the extra taxes you're paying could go straight to the charity's coffers instead of the governments.
So your argument is "I wouldn't use it, therefore it is not a useful product." Way more than 85,000 people disagree with you.
I'll be using mine as I work through a new exercise regiment. It'll be nice to be able to glance down at my watch to see how far I've run. I'm sure I'll come up with other uses as well.
I think that would be aiding and abetting. However, in the case of flashing your lights, you are flashing them in the general vicinity, not specifically warning criminals. If you wanted to make a comparison to robbery, it would be more like, going into a crowd and telling everyone that a certain area had a high police presence. If that crowd happened to contain robbers, they may avoid the area that you specified so as to not get caught.
"The university did nothing to silence her speech, but merely said that if she wanted to say those things, she couldn't do it while a student in their school."
Isn't that the exact definition of silencing speech. Short of taking someone's life, all instances of silencing speech are really just where and how said speech is allowed (i.e. "You can say whatever you want, just not in this country... just not within X miles of this event, etc.)
Multiple other factors seem to be left out here. First, the article mentions that the prints are displayed in galleries worldwide. I'm not an art gallery expert, but I would assume they usually pay an artist for this. Second, you are discounting any extra income that may have been generated by the video itself, such as increased record sales (which I'm aware are unlimited) and increased tickets/prices for performances. Most artists spend however much they feel necessary for producing a music video with no hope of making that money back directly. The hope is that the video increases awareness. In this case, it not only did that, but the artist was able to turn the video directly into extra income.
Normally, I agree with most of the posts here, but I'm not sure about this one. It's not like he told a bunch of people to visit the website in question in order to take it down (a la the Slashdot effect). He had them visit a different website that would then generate multiple requests to the server in question. In a way, it sounds like he crowdsourced a DDOS. I'm not sure if it's criminal, but it definitely seems to cross an ethical line.
Even playing offline could be a problem in the future. I was sold I console that would play PS3 games. Future PS3 games might require a certain firmware version (or higher), thereby forcing me to update. You could have someone saying they were willing to forgo all future updates and features in order to keep this one feature, but then the basic functionality (playing PS3 games) would eventually break.
Did you hear that whooshing sound? the ACs comment was obviously a joke referencing the fact that the net effect of the DMCA is to impact the average consumer more than the hacker.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Hmm. Maybe Techdirt likes films in which Muslims are murdered.
Re: english
Re: Re:
Although this isn't necessarily a defense of appropriateness, it does show that the individual who requested the removal has a different barometer for appropriateness than the majority of the library-going public.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Native Americans
I agree with you, in theory, that a company should be able to run themselves as they see fit and we, the people, should determine how well they perform in their business. However, I would argue that in addition to not frequenting their establishment, part of my rights would include doing whatever I can to influence them to change their product.
Re: Native Americans
NFL: Washington Redskins and Kansas City Chiefs
MLB: Atlanta Braves and Cleveland Indians
NHL: Chicago Blackhawks
These are just in major league sports. There are multiple others at the college or minor league pro level.
Re: Re: Jack Bauer: the American role-model
Re:
http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/02/notch-gives-3-million-mojang-dividend-to-employees/
Unintentional Innuendo
Are you saying that unbeatable didn't even register as innuendo?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Not just that it's none of their business, but also on the complexity issues. However, I think claiming that taking the deduction is tantamount to instructing the government to donate in your stead is a bit disingenuous. That would only be true if you were taking a tax credit. A deduction, on the other hand, just prevents them from taxing you on that amount. Also, if you took the deductions, you could afford to give 12% or even more to charity, because the extra taxes you're paying could go straight to the charity's coffers instead of the governments.
Justin's
Justin's is delicious and would make a much better shake.
Re: Re:
Re:
I'll be using mine as I work through a new exercise regiment. It'll be nice to be able to glance down at my watch to see how far I've run. I'm sure I'll come up with other uses as well.
Re: Re: Re:
Re: You're cloaking a defeat for your notions with focus on money.
(untitled comment)
Isn't that the exact definition of silencing speech. Short of taking someone's life, all instances of silencing speech are really just where and how said speech is allowed (i.e. "You can say whatever you want, just not in this country... just not within X miles of this event, etc.)
Re: Re: ONLY $87,000
Hmmm...
Re: oh look what a big sword I've got
Re: Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
Did you hear that whooshing sound? the ACs comment was obviously a joke referencing the fact that the net effect of the DMCA is to impact the average consumer more than the hacker.
More comments from azuravian >>
azuravian’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt