I can't understand how a presumably sane person would think some words on some website could possibly be legally binding on anyone without their express agreement.What a strange life they must lead, complying with all the commands on all the websites.
You talk about logic as if you were being logical, and you aren't.
When you stop equating physical things with digital things, then you can make a claim to "logic". Those things are not equal and never will be. Your reliance on this absurd comparison invalidates your arguments.
It's on public display. It was commissioned to be on public display. That means we're allowed to look at it, photograph it, paint it and remember it. If the artist doesn't like it (and, apparently, has the power to object) then, well, remove it! Move it to a secure, inaccessible building where the artist can sit and stare at it alone.
If the artist owns the copyright and doesn't like it being photographed, the government is just going to have to remove it, cover it up or bury it.
Sounds like a good idea. Commission a new monument from someone less greedy.
Re: Re: Troll tip # 20348: Don't read the author's name
No, you can use your ad hominem attacks any time your little heart desires. Remember, to be effective, don't bother addressing any of the points brought up and don't bother with facts, just ad hominem, that's all you need to "win" any debate. Go!
The problems with your proposal are:
1. The current laws have not affected cracking at all. What makes you think more laws will be different.
2. Such laws, while not stopping criminal behavior, end up criminalizing legal behavior.
3. These laws, then, push law-abiding citizens TO "criminal" behavior in order to accomplish what used to be, and should be, legal activities.
To summarize: Your solution does nothing to solve the problems but, instead, makes things a lot worse. Other than that, nice try!
Any intelligent person will always come down on the side of freedom, no matter what it costs. To refer to those who advocate freedom as "freetards" shows that your bias is toward less freedom and more control. It also shows that you are not as intelligent as you think you are.
You said "I don't see him as a particularly impartial viewer of anonymous."
So, you only accept information from people who don't care about the subject? That's insane.
Of course, I know that's not really what you do. In truth, you only accept information from people who agree with you. That is also insane but is all too common.
You said "You can't debate something until you put it on a level playing field. This is certainly far from a level playing field right now.
Interesting "rules" you go by. Intelligent people debate things all the time starting from uneven starting positions. That's what debate is all about! What you are really saying is, because the debate is already favoring a position you don't like, we must ignore and discount all the factors that support that viewpoint.
So unproven assertions of guilt are a reason to shut down a site. Unproven assertions of the MAGNITUDE of the problem are a reason to over-react and "accidentally" stomp on free speech. Your own presumptions are SO good you feel that insulting me is an appropriate response.
I think your response is a good example why your position is dangerous for all who support innocent until PROVEN guilty and for all who defend free speech.