Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: regarding publication freedom and varied media
but he didn't need to imagine how he would feel if his family died in a car crash to do that.
Yes - and beyond that it brings in an emotional reaction which is seldom a good basis for rational thought. IN particular it is more likely to result is laws to penalise the driver who is deemed responsible (even though there will ALWAYS be some who make mistakes) rather than technical solutions that would actually avert the accident.
For example Princess Diana's death had one cause that the authorities could do something about - not the paparazzi, not the drunken/drugged chauffeur, (and certainly not some ridiculous conspiracy by the Duke of Edinburgh) not even her own failure to wear a seat belt - but the failure of the French highways agency to install a crash barrier in the tunnel.
The press - by concentrating on emotionally charged reasons has obscured the important one (which AFAIK has still not been done).
"Political Correctness" originally meant denying the truth in order to conform to party doctrine and actually it still means that - it's just that the party doctrines in question have changed. It stymies free speech by promoting self-censorship.
It isn't just about not using certain words - it is about not expressing certain ideas in any form.
Now some of these ideas may be repugnant and some may be false - but not all are and even the false ones need to be aired if they are to be refuted.
Re: Re: technology choices that can minimize the impact
Which doesn't stop the trolls from complaining that it is censorship. It was introduced to combat spam - but in its current usage it tends to hide a post but not the counter-speech posts that follow it - rendering the hiding fairly pointless. Personally I think we should limit its use to the hiding of real spam since at present we are giving some ammunition to the trolls.
So my problem remains - just any technology choice to limit impact has the potential to be portrayed as censorship.
The school wanted to keep this quiet, to spare the teacher and the student any public embarrassment but the parent's demands for a meeting threw this into disarray and they were forced to refer this matter to the District Attorney's office for possible criminal charges.
Rubbish! If the school had really wanted to keep this quiet it would have gone no further than a 10 minute dressing down in the principal's office, followed by an apology to the teacher.
What made this case happen is the collision between the public internet - in which the author of a comment is clearly identifiable and the culture of lavatory wall graffitti.
Had the two posts in question been written on a wall somewhere in the school the (unless the culprits were caught in the act) all that the school could have done is to clean them off. Even if caught in the act it would mostly have been the damage to school premises that was punished - rather than whe textual content. In my experience exchanges as bad (or worse) than this have been written on school walls worldwide since forever. (I believe that examples can be found in Pompeii and even ancient Egypt!)
The internet version is really no more damaging to the teacher than the old, physical version
Sagehorn clearly didn't take into account that his tweet was easily traceable back to him - and the school treated it like is was a far more formal thing than it actually was.
You'd better withdraw it then because Beahen is on record in the court proceedings as : "intentionally commented to the news media about Sagehorn’s conduct, stating “that’s a crime” and adding that Sagehorn “could face felony charges” for the post."
Re: The worst crime possible in the eyes of the petty
This bit in particular...
'In addition, Bezek and Hennen-Burr warned the Sagehorns that the school would consider increasing the expulsion punishment through the remainder of the school year if they requested a hearing.'
Is nothing less than blatantly threatening the student and his parents if they dared to try and challenge the decision already decided on. 'Sure you can appeal the punishment, but doing so is just going to make it worse'.
This is down to the fact that plea bargaining has become such a standard practice in the US that people don't realise how morally indefensible it is. This is the same tactic that cost the life of Aaron Swartz.
We need to clean out this practice wherever it occurs - it has nothing to do with justice.
No, no, no, nope, nononononono no! Absolutely nothing like that.
And actually - if you think about it hard enough, shouting Fire in a crowded theatre isn't that bad.
If there is a panic/stampede that causes injury then it is clear that the authorities haven't lived up to their responsibilities in providing suitable evacuation routes and clearly informing their customers about them. So any problem is really their responsiobility.
If on the other hand they have provided good evacuation procedures then everyone will elave the building calmy and in order and no great harm will have been done.
Again, you can address voter fraud without outlawing all photographs.
Which is why I said that a technical solution was preferable.
At present I can't think of such a solution - the best I can come up with is that you vote for a candidate by placing an odd number of X's in his box and an even number in all other candidates boxes. That way you can vote for one candidate, take a photo and then change you vote by adding second X in his box and then vote for someone else.