Free speech is instrumental in critizing and giving feedback to the government. Without free speech we lose the ability to stand up for ourselves.
The second amendment is nothing but an old relic that makes it possible for people that shouldn't have firearms to get hold of them. There is a marked correlation between the availability of firearms and the number of gun related deaths. In fact the only countries that have more gun related deaths than the US is South Africa, Colombia, Thailand and Guatemala. And two of those are in a constant state of war!
Wow, this boggles my mind. I realy can't understand where these people are coming from. How can someone be so stupid as to think that merely making something illegal (with absurdly wide implications) will make it go away.
The only way to beat the problem of bullying is education (in the sense of teaching children to be caring and understanding to their fellow man/woman) and creating an enviroment that fosters such behaviour.
But I don't think they will ever think of doing that, because it is hard and takes a lot of effort. Merely making something illegal is easy and then they can stick their fingers in their ears and say that they have dealt with the problem.
The thing that scares me most is that I can't decide if all these stories paints a picture of someone maliciously and with intent trying to remove all our rights, or if they sincerely don't understand what they are doing.
I don't understand why people keep comparing America to china when it comes to censorship
In China free speech is censored by the government by the will of the governing party so that the governing party will stay in control (by making sure that people don't realize that they can organize and overthrow the government.)
In America free speech is censored by the government by the will of big corporations so that they will keep backing the man they helped put into the Presidency (via monetary support).
Hmm ... maybe this isn't so different at all.
The politicians all seem to be looking out for themselves, at least this hypothesis explaines why the biggest stakeholder (the public) in these debates never get invited to have its say.
The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorized taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.
Lets break this definition down so we can see it clearly:
Theft is impossible since any item downloaded off the internet doesn't really exist. It is impossible to "steal" an idea and it is impossible to steal via copyright infringment. Calling it theft is intellectually dishonest
You can talk about being deprived of income by infringement but it can never be "theft". The failure of content industries to adapt to a changing market should never be a criminal issue, especially when study after study has shown that people will use money on things THEY FEEL ARE WORHT IT and strangely enough treating your customers as thieving bastards doesn't help in this.
And all this posits that people will always buy everything they download, completely ignoring that a big part of culture is sharing, and modern copyright laws are all about locking content up. It is no wonder that people don't respect these laws, they treat something intangible (1 and 0 on the internet) as if they have an actual value (in the same way that an apple will always have an actual value) when people know that they don't have any inherent value.
Now Garm howls loud | before Gnipahellir,
The fetters will burst, | and the wolf run free;
Much do I know, | and more can see
Of the fate of the gods, | the mighty in fight.
In Norse mythology, Garmr or Garm (Old Norse "rag") is a dog associated with Ragnarök, and described as a blood-stained watchdog that guarded Hel's gate.
Since I'm of Norwegian descent how can they claim that I am not named after the wolf that guards the entrance to hel [sic]. I prefer to post anonymously, since I don't want everyone to know what I am doing at any one time. This does not make me evil, nor does it make me a criminal. It would be any hypothetical action from me that could do that.
Removing pharma patents is the only way to go. These patents only empower a system where the goal isn't to get people healthy, it's only to get them well enough to not die.
Why cure someone if you can sell him a lifetime supply of expensotron (TM).
If medical research was free and there where no drug patents the only way a company could make big money was if THEY CREATE A BETTER DRUG THAN EVERY ONE ELSE!.
And this will be easy if there are no software patents.
And even if patents didn't exist there are laws to stop people for stealing your product and passing it off as their own. The only way they can "steal" your work is if they also improve it.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Freedom is a never ending struggle. We should strive for a society where everyone can say anything they want, and when we arrive there we will have to hope that this society is an ethical society where people do not say things only with the intent to hurt others.
But even if this proves to be impossible I will always chose to live in such a society. Such things is a small price to pay for me being able to say what I want.
The second we let others decide what we can and can't say is the second we give up and accept the tyranny of others.
When I read about such things as this I am always reminded of these words:
Most civilization is based on cowardice. It's so easy to civilize by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to bravery. You restrain the will. You regulate the appetites. You fence in the horizons. You make a law for every movement. You deny the existence of chaos. You teach even the children to breathe slowly. You tame.
This doesn't surprise me in the least. I have always considered Russia to be at the forefront of enlightened, conscientious, intelligent debate about the need to remove barrier to innovation and the free flow of ideas and information.
If only USA would look at Russia and see how you should respond to the encroachment of our rights by unscrupulous businesses and overeager governments.