Assault On Free Speech

[CliveStaples]

Oh, how cute. You didn't read the thread, particularly the post where I said, "if it doesn't fall under fair use." I would say I'm pretty familiar with it, given that I have to deal with it on a regular basis. It seems like you should practice reading for a bit. Don't worry. I'll wait until you're done.

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.

In that case, you would be daft.

...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.

[Shell B]

Not when it comes to my words, buddy. I kind of make a living off of them.

[Faith No More]

...when it comes right down to the end, the atheist is going to vote for the atheist and Christians will vote for the Christian.

So, are you now trying to justify your own closed-minded voting policy by saying it's okay since the other guy does it?

I find it curious that you would say this anyway, because I myself have never even bothered to look at what religion the candidate I'm voting for is.

[CliveStaples]

Not when it comes to my words, buddy. I kind of make a living off of them.

...that's your response? You don't even bother to deny that you were issuing threats with the intent of discouraging legitimate uses of your speech?

Is it supposed to be obvious to me that you aren't that much of an asshole? Because you're not really doing much to convince me of that.

[The Grand Nudger]

I find it curious that you would say this anyway, because I myself have never even bothered to look at what religion the candidate I'm voting for is.

As though whatever line of bullshit they might feed the masses about what they believe would be indicative of reality in the first place..hehehe.

[A Theist]

...when it comes right down to the end, the atheist is going to vote for the atheist and Christians will vote for the Christian.

So, are you now trying to justify your own closed-minded voting policy by saying it's okay since the other guy does it?

I find it curious that you would say this anyway, because I myself have never even bothered to look at what religion the candidate I'm voting for is.

So, are you saying that it's okay for your double standard voting policy to allow you to do it but no one else can?

I also said this in the text of my response that you cherry picked....."I would have no problem voting for an atheist candidate whose policies I would agree with as long as that candidate respected my rights to my faith."

[Shell B]

...that's your response? You don't even bother to deny that you were issuing threats with the intent of discouraging legitimate uses of your speech?

Is it supposed to be obvious to me that you aren't that much of an asshole? Because you're not really doing much to convince me of that.

Um, my initial post actually spoke quite clearly of illegitimate uses. I believe I said, "if it doesn't fall under fair use." Why are you having so much trouble keeping up?

It was never my intent to convince anyone that I am not an asshole. I am an asshole. I'm an asshole trying to explain something simple to a dipshit with an agenda. That's not going to bring out my unasshole side, if ever I had such a thing.

[CliveStaples]

Um, my initial post actually spoke quite clearly of illegitimate uses. I believe I said, "if it doesn't fall under fair use." Why are you having so much trouble keeping up?

If you read my post, you'd know that I argued that your statement was really just a threat designed to curtail legitimate fair-use of your speech. If I say, "I'm gonna be incredibly litigious if you go over the line at all," then the person is probably going to steer clear of the line. And that's what I think your threat was designed to do: curtail fair usage of your speech.

It was never my intent to convince anyone that I am not an asshole. I am an asshole. I'm an asshole trying to explain something simple to a dipshit with an agenda. That's not going to bring out my unasshole side, if ever I had such a thing.

It seems like you're an asshole who uses the threat of litigation to curtail protected speech.

[Shell B]

If you read my post, you'd know that I argued that your statement was really just a threat designed to curtail legitimate fair-use of your speech.

Overzealous inference.

If I say, "I'm gonna be incredibly litigious if you go over the line at all," then the person is probably going to steer clear of the line. And that's what I think your threat was designed to do: curtail fair usage of your speech.

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

It seems like you're an asshole who uses the threat of litigation to curtail protected speech.

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.

[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?