Leaving aside all the rest of the nonsense you managed to pack into three short sentence, give me one good reason why anyone should not have the right to say any thing that's true.
Certainly there are times and circumstances when it is impolite or unwise to voice certain truths, but unless the thing in question is a secret covered by a legal contract, which is not what you're talking about here, to say that someone does not have the right to say it is to advocate straight-up tyranny.
It's something we've seen again and again throughout history, and especially throughout modern history: the worst thing that can possibly happen to any X that's generally good is for someone, somewhere, to discover that there's lots of money to be made in X.
BTW if you want to see a system where democratic, community-focused moderation is a thing and mods are elected by the community, (and can be thrown out and replaced in a new election,) don't look at Reddit; look at the StackExchange network. (Disclosure: I'm an elected mod on one of the SE sites.)
A lot of people overestimate how much Facebook makes from them.
Maybe. Perhaps they only made $1 off your latest post. But multiply that by a few hundred million users and soon enough you're talking about real money. The "serf" metaphor really does apply pretty well here: each individual serf didn't create all that much revenue for his lord, but the feudal lords tended to have plenty of serfs working for them on their estates.
The reasons for slavery were purely economic in the first place, as were the reasons for the acts of secession and rebellion that triggered the war, with lots of political rhetoric to get the backing of the people of the South. That doesn't make any of it any less about slavery, when you get down to it.
This is exactly right. Retroactive copyright extension is blatantly unconstitutional, because the Constitution says, in perfect plainness, that we can't pass any ex post facto (retroactive) laws. But that hasn't stopped publishing interests from getting them passed...
That's unquestionably breaking their oath of office. It's arguably treason.
You could argue that--anyone can, and frequently does, argue anything--but you'd be objectively wrong:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. -- US Constitution, Article III, Section 3
Sound like they committed some really serious crimes, but not treason.
However it's worth noting that the only possible use for these lists is abuse.
Not necessarily. Consider:
- Guy goes to work for what he thinks is a company that runs legitimate summits. - Guy finds out that they're actually running a scam. - Guy is horrified and quits. - Guy goes into business running legitimate summits. Notifies "clients" of old business that were taken in by the scam that they were taken in by a scam, and quite helpfully points them to a business that runs legitimate summits.
Assuming that the response of the "clients" is not of the "fool me once..." variety, this is a win-win scenario. Everyone wins except the parasites, who end up losing, so basically the best possible outcome.
Not saying that that is what happened, but it does appear to be a possibility at least.
That doesn't mitigate the alleged damages. Theft of a client list is still theft, no matter how little actual value the list contains.
1) Making a copy of something is not theft. (Why am I having to point this out here, to an author?) 2) Is it really a client list if they're not actually clients because there's no business being transacted with the people on the list? Reading this, I was under the impression that no actual summits were taking place.
Fact: Alcohol is a highly addictive substance, and addiction poses severe negative consequences to both physical and mental health. This alone is enough to establish drinking as objectively immoral, because dealing with situations where non-intuitive long-term harm arises as a consequence of things that seem pleasurable or beneficial in the short term is the most important task, if not the entire point, of morality.
Fact: Alcohol reduces inhibitions and behavioral filters. This is the source behind both the ancient proverb "in vino veritas" and the modern stereotype of the "mean drunk." It causes you to say and do things you would not say and do otherwise because you (when you're clear-headed) know that they are harmful. (There are those who would claim that this lowering of inhibitions is actually a benefit. It's worth noting that such a belief is positively correlated with actions that courts in just about every jurisdiction these days consider to be rape.)
Fact: Alcohol reduces cognitive abilities, both in the short-term and the long term. This is much more relevant in modern times than in ancient days, for two reasons: the "knowledge economy" (which a good percentage of Techdirt readers are participants in) and automobiles (I don't think I've ever heard anyone even try to say with a straight face that drunk driving is in any way morally acceptable.) But even laying these two points aside, who in their right mind would say it's OK to destroy your brain?
Those are all completely objective and non-controversial facts; I don't even have to begin to get into statistics on a moral question this basic...
The acting persons who did bad things, not his weapons of choice.
Ah yes, the old "guns don't kill people; people kill people" canard. I was wondering how long until someone would trot that out.
The problem is, actual data suggests that's not true in any but the most technical, literal sense. Yes, people kill people, but they're doing it with guns. Put two pairs of people in the exact same Bad Situation, with the same problems, the same tempers flaring, everything equivalent, except that in one of them there is a gun available and in the other, there isn't. The chance of the victim ending up dead in the first version is much, much higher; there are tons of studies demonstrating this.
In light of this, there's nothing "irrational" at all about a bias against guns.