Assault On Free Speech

[LastPoet]

Should I post while drunk? Part of me says yes, part oof me says no.

Mabe I should make a poll

[CliveStaples]

Overzealous inference.

Really? You're antagonistic, you brag about how much you know about fair use, and you're litigious ("for the fucking fun of it").

What portion of people who have those traits are scrupulous, and what portion use litigation as a tool of intimidation?

A DMCA takedown is not incredibly litigious. It takes five minutes to handle and five minutes to abide by.

Unless they dispute it, of course. But that's the point of intimidating them, isn't it?

Anything over fair use is not protected speech. I have to deal with asshats like you all the time who think freedom of speech means freedom to steal the words of others. It means you can use your own words, not mine. I could give a shriveled up pair of monkey's balls what you think of my personality. It has no bearing whatsoever on our disagreement. However, if you want to go that road, you sound like a hopped up dickhead who is arguing the right to plagiarize others.

Ah, I see we're dealing with an internet tough guy. You don't care about my opinion--but I never said you did. Okay. Any other pointless posturing you'd like to get out of the way?

Straw man, and bizarrely so. I never claimed that protected speech covers things that go beyond fair use. I claimed that you're using the threat of litigation as a device to curtail legitimate (i.e., lawful) fair use of your speech.

[Lion IRC]

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?

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.

Come on CS. Give her a break.
(words are how she makes her living) LOL.

If she wants to sue ppl - for the fun of it she said - then she can.

But I'm gonna chain link and quote those sexist epithets like confetti

[CliveStaples]

Come on CS. Give her a break.
(words are how she makes her living) LOL.

If she wants to sue ppl - for the fun of it she said - then she can.

Suing people "for the fun of it" is not a good use of our legal system. Legal redress is not supposed to be about providing entertainment to one of the parties.

But I'm gonna chain link and quote those sexist epithets like confetti

...sexist epithets? Which part of what I said was sexist?

[A Theist]

Come on CS. Give her a break.
(words are how she makes her living) LOL.

If she wants to sue ppl - for the fun of it she said - then she can.

Suing people "for the fun of it" is not a good use of our legal system. Legal redress is not supposed to be about providing entertainment to one of the parties.

But I'm gonna chain link and quote those sexist epithets like confetti

...sexist epithets? Which part of what I said was sexist?

I believe Lion IRC was referring to Shell B making sexist epithets.

[Lion IRC]

Come on CS. Give her a break.
(words are how she makes her living) LOL.

If she wants to sue ppl - for the fun of it she said - then she can.

Suing people "for the fun of it" is not a good use of our legal system. Legal redress is not supposed to be about providing entertainment to one of the parties.

GOOD POINT.
I hadnt considered how frivolous that would be.
A bit like giving a kudos for posts you find ridiculous.

Then again...

Hey.
I got my first Kudos.
Woo hoooooo!
See that Pahu?

*sniff*
They took away my kudos. ;-(
[/quote]

Accidental kudos happen. To be honest, I thought they were "holy shit that is so ridiculous that I am giving him kudos" kudos. I do that sometimes, myself.

[Reforged]

A good businessman never uses his business as a platform to push forward a political or religious agenda and nor should he. The role of a business is supply and demand, nothing more and nothing less. Anything more isolates segments of the market, alienates customers and makes the business a target to opposing political or religious agendas. It puts the entire business at risk through a practise that is neither practical or ethical.

Does anyone here disagree with this statement?

[Ryantology]

A good business man never uses his business as a platform to push forward a political agenda and nor should he. The role of a business is supply and demand, nothing more and nothing less.
Does anyone here disagree with this statement?

I agree with this statement in principle. In practice I am a person with opinions on certain political issues. I never make a point to patronize a business just on the basis of their stated views on a subject being compatible with mine, but I will refuse to do business with a company who supports something I am against, unless I have no practical choice in doing so. I like Chick-fil-A's food, but if they are donating money to Focus on the Family and Exodus International, they will never donate another penny which comes from me.

I think it is probably best that a company not involve itself in politics of any kind, for any reason, including making donations to candidates or politically-driven causes.

[Reforged]

A good business man never uses his business as a platform to push forward a political agenda and nor should he. The role of a business is supply and demand, nothing more and nothing less.
Does anyone here disagree with this statement?

I agree with this statement in principle. In practice I am a person with opinions on certain political issues. I never make a point to patronize a business just on the basis of their stated views on a subject being compatible with mine, but I will refuse to do business with a company who supports something I am against, unless I have no practical choice in doing so.

I think it is probably best that a company not involve itself in politics of any kind, for any reason, including making donations to candidates or politically-driven causes.

And you're right to do that but you wouldn't rave about your political standing through your business and expect it not to effect you negatively would you?

Thats my point. The moment you use your business as a platform for a religious or political statement then you are subjecting your customers and potential customers to bias.
This is what Chick-fil-A did. The second they subjected their market to this bias they lost the right to not be subjected to the same in return.
A business must be politically and religiously neutral to be both ethical and successful.
Soooo.... A Theist, Clive, Lion... you lose. Deal with it. :-)

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

if all else was pretty much equal, the atheist is going to get my vote

Why? Atheism implies nothing about ability or honestly. Being Christian is meant to imply all kinds of splendid qualities, but that is seldom the reality. Not here,and not in daily life.

As it turns out,our incumbent Prime Minister is an atheist. I did not vote for her party because I think they are a bunch of useless arseholes and she is an incompetent twit.

Religious beliefs and the sexual preferences of candidates are not issues here,except in the tiny bigoted minds of the lunar religious right and homophobes..


Australia has a long history of atheists in government,and currently has many openly gay members of parliament .The former leader of our major minor party (The Greens) was a gay atheist man.