AN early US president, John Adams, said
Avarice, ambition, revenge and licentiousness would break the strongest cords of our Constitution, as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
The problem is that the US public is now so divided that whichever side wins behaves as if they got a unanimous vote.
Normally this is the part where I'd say "and yes, I'd say this if the electoral college had shafted Trump too" but the problem is this has happened twice in the past 20 years and BOTH TIMES it was my team, the Democrats, that got royally f**ked by this. The simple truth of the matter is that the system IS rigged. It's just that it's rigged in a manner to give rural, sparsely populated counties an unfair influence over the outcome of the election. i.e. rigged in favor of Trump supporters, and Republicans in general, NOT rigged against them.
No that isn't the problem - after all Trump could easily have won the popular vote too - and then you wouldn't have a complaint. No the problem is the winner takes all culture of politics by which elected governments ignore the wishes of the 49%. (or event he 51%)
This really started to get worse with Margaret Thatcher in the UK.
Even with a popular vote referendum you are not safe. The UK didn't vote for any particular Brexit outcome - they voted (narrowly) against the remain option. It is certain that whatever deal we end up with will be less popular than remaining in the EU.
Re: Re: And is that the standard for not facing prosecution now?
Except that the US is a rogue state that practices cruel and unusual punishments, has the largest prison population in the world and has a uniquely awful plea bargaining system that basically denies justice to anyone sent there - especially for this type of crime.
You are correct in respect of the lawsuit- and I haven't seen anyone in the comments ay otherwise.
However there is a problem in that the constitution framers didn't predict the existence of large and powerful media corporations whose actions could be as damaging as government censorship - nor did they forsee that government could use pressure on these corporations as an end run around the 1st amendment. (Just like they have tried to starve anyone they don't like of funds by pressurising paypal, banks and credit card providers.)
I'm not wrong - all I'm saying is that censorship by a sufficiently large and powerful private organisation is in practice indistinguishable in it effects from censorship by government. In those circumstance the first amendment is of limited value.
The important bit is suppress, that is try to prevent all publication, which is different from not on my service, try elsewhere.
What if the government goes around to all the big service providers and has a quiet word in their ear about things they don't like?
If a private company is doing the business at the behest of government then really that is just as bad as the government doing it. We see governments putting this kind of pressure on in public in relation to porn and copyright.
I'm sorry to disagree with xkcd but both are censorship.
How serious it is depends on the amount of power possessed by the institution in question relative to the relevant audience. Even a local newspaper exercising censorship on a local issue can be a problem - if the have an effective local monopoly.
The medieval Catholic church wasn't the government anywhere (except perhaps Vatican city) but it was still responsible for effective censorship.
Also I would have thought that the folks here would have been aware of the role of the London Company of stationers (a private institution) as an organ of censorship in the early history of copyright.
Plus the folks here are quite happy to complain about copyright/censorship when exercised by (eg) youtube's content ID system.
It seems to me that the determining factor is that you don't like Pamela Geller's views - so the word games and sophistry starts to try to prove that she hasn't got a point. (Of course clearly the legal case was just stupid and doomed from the start but that doesn't mean that morally she doesn't have a point.)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?
He convinced everyone Jewish people a problem, and anti-Jewish sentiment rose until it reached a breaking point. Do you really think that it would have been wrong to stop that, to make it illegal?
But - he did that from a position of power - when there were no free speech rights. The fact is that most examples quoted as reasons for limiting free speech are misleading - for exactly that reason. Totalitarians don't get into power by "hate speech" - they get into power by first claiming victimhood and railing against other people's "hate speech" against them.
Re: Re: Re: Re: What the hell was the purpose of this law?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING: there are crimes, and there is hate: if someone murders me, do i really care if they loved me or hated me ? ? ? oh, you love me ? oh, okay, then murdering me was ok then... love you too ! ! ! xxoo
don't be daft, punks...|
Reminds me of the "Life on Mars" episode
Sam Tyler: I think we need to explore whether this attempted murder was a hate crime.
Gene: What as opposed to one of those I-really-really-like-you sort of murders?