For those who think it so idiotic to hold platforms of search engines liable for other peoples' speech: those same companies also argue that third-party speech is their (the company's) speech, at least when the government comes in to regulate them.
section 230 is premised on the idea that it isn't their speech; First Amendment arguments are premised on the fact that it is.
"Public Servant" is a euphemism..they are Government Servants..Cops exist to protect the State(Government), Enforce it's Laws and maintain General Order(If that order is arresting African-Americans for violating Jim Crow..they will do it). So lets get that straight..Cops exist to Serve and Protect the Government..Courts have already ruled that Cops have no duty to protect individuals. So when you ask the question about a person who works for a private business feel about a customer(or non-customer) going to a business on private property to record and heckle isn't the same as a Government Servant being heckled/recorded in on a Public Street/Public Area..don't forget Cops aren't the employees of Citizens..we aren't their customers..so they have no duty to treat us with respect the way a real business would that trying to attract customers.
Wouldn't having a jury of peers, fellow citizens, fix the problem.. real people presented with this ridiculous evidence would be able to come up with more sensible verdicts. The drawback of course would be in that forming a jury is time-consuming and probably costs extra money. Perhaps technology could be used for jury members to telecommute their presence at the court while being at home.
No day goes by, or one reads a newspaper article which cites an anonymous government official. "A source close to the minister said..." We have to give up anonymity when reading a newspaper article, while they get quoted "speaking under condition of anonymity"?
The Royal Institute of International Affairs, St. James's Square, London, also known as Chatham House, even has an anonimity rule.
At a meeting held under the Chatham House Rule, anyone who comes to the meeting is free to use information from the discussion, but is not allowed ever to reveal the identity, employer or political party of the person making a comment. It is designed to increase openness of discussion of public policy and current affairs, as it allows people to express and discuss controversial opinions and arguments without suffering the risk of dismissal from their job, and with a clear separation from the opinion and the view of their employer.
If Her Majesty's Government wants to abolish anonymity online, shouldn't it begin by abolishing anonymity within its own walls?
Naaa, they'll just sign a "Forget about me Google" form and the bad reviews will magically go away. It'll be easy for them to sell to the next customer since there are no bad comments -- EVER.
OMG: Why the EU courts didn't leave google alone and go after the actual source site? THEN if google doesn't update its index in a reasonable time (months, not seconds), THEN you go after google.
It's just like fortune tellers and members of government: count or inflate the number of times you're right but completely ignore and discount the number times you're wrong. ("Oh, I misspoke; I mean you just didn't hear me correctly to start with. You should be more accurate with your reporting.")
'4. The "rules" of the Turing test always seem to change. Hell, Turing's original test was quite different anyway.'
The link to the original test contains a link at the bottom to a 1996 criticism of the test: 'Jason Hutchens... has written an excellent article on what's wrong with it, and with the Turing test in general. Essentially, Hutchens is making the case that the Turing Test is a poor test of intelligence, that it encourages trickery, not intelligent behaviour, and that many intelligent systems would fail this test.'
If any of the national security agencies in this country have bona fide intelligence on terrorist threats in this country, and believe me there are plenty, (http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/government-refuses-to-deport-syrian-terrorist-facilitator-wi th-ties-to-911-attacks/) then by all means, I want them to use every resource they have to get so far up their ass, they’ll feel like they’re getting a colonoscopy.
There needs to be strict, common sense oversight based on verified indications and warnings. The problem is, any power created for clandestine use can be abused.
The erosion of America’s civil and personal liberties has taken on evil proportions. Obama’s abuse of power in particular, is unprecedented.
It’s not just the government, private omnipresent companies like Google are doing the same thing. They collaborate with government agencies in exchange for political favors.
The line between security and liberty has been crossed. It’s up to the citizens of America to kick their asses back over that line.
In your desperate need to appear and feel intelligent, you have overlooked important concepts. Master among them is the notion that facts are convincing and therefore, appealing. Your personal views are not convincing. Your argument is further diluted by your overt, questionless adoption of an external belief system.
Do you even know what you are debating? At one time the topic was child pornography in the United States. Do you think you are helping us to understand human biology?
"Semen accumulates in the testicles from puberty onwards and more semen may be formed than the system can assimilate; when this happens, semen is expelled during the sleep."
The rote recital of written word conceived by others is invariably a primary symptom of one's intellectual deficit. Echoing another's justifiable beliefs brings question to the parrot's creativity. Echoing another's unjustifiable beliefs draws glaring attention to your shocking stupidity.