Assault On Free Speech

[Autumnlicious]

So if you disqualify someone based solely on their religion, that's "hateful bias"? Do you really think the theists here are more hatefully biased against atheists than the atheists are against the theists?

Pretty much. Your second question is a loaded question, as you've yet to specify the "atheist bias" -- so far I've argued over inspecting policy.

You do know that's what politicians enact, right?

...? I never said that she had specified the length of a potential length of text that would constitute infringement.

Stop right there.

You brought up "fair use". But ok, Cunt Staples, let's investigate the relevant post you brought that into:

That's not censorship, you dipshit. I have freedom of speech. You have freedom of speech. However, neither of us has the freedom to use someone else's words without their permission. Intellectual property law =/= censorship.

...uh, not every quotation needs to have permission. If you, say, admit to a crime, I can report that to the cops. It doesn't seem like you know the extent of intellectual property law (or privacy law, which might be applicable). Have you heard of the fair use doctrine?

Seems like my post on fair use and what disqualifies it is perfectly valid. Have a nice day.

She said:

Screen cap it all you want. If I ever seen it anywhere that doesn't fall under fair use, I'll DMCA you for the fucking fun of it.

This seems like an attempt to intimidate someone into not using material under Fair Use from fear of being prosecuted. So of course she left it open-ended; that's the point of a threat.

Guess it's a good thing that she said, and I embolden as you are too blind to read a series of characters aligned horizontally on the screen:

Screen cap it all you want. If I ever seen it anywhere that doesn't fall under fair use, I'll DMCA you for the fucking fun of it.

Seems like her threat is perfectly valid and correct under legal procedures specified by the DMCA.

Oh, you might know the definition. You certainly don't respect the reason for having a "fair use" exception, otherwise you won't issue speech-chilling threats--but apparently, you have to "deal with" fair use on a regular basis. Should I assume your jackboot-on-the-neck approach here is typical? Not really a fan of free speech, eh?

Of course, because threatening to enforce existing laws while specifying that said enforcement must qualify ("If it doesn't fall under fair use") is anti-freespeech.

Although I probably shouldn't challenge you, because you might direct your ire at me--and who knows what resources you have at your disposal? I don't really feel like being SWATed.

If she has the SWAT, she's been holding out on us.

...why? Or am I supposed to take your declarations on faith? I thought you atheists were opposed to that kind of mindless kowtowing. But apparently you're also opposed to things like supporting your claims.

Don't worry, we'll leave the weekly mindless kowtowing to you -- I suppose you'll choose a sunday?