New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
And that's why free speech must be absolute. There can be no 'buts' in the discussion of it.
Francisco
Everyone should have the right to lie. Exposing them and showing the lack of credibility is a permanent job for everyone who can do that. Denying liars the platform is not the way, it can be exploited and it is exploited by many regimes which have laws against free speech disguised under "spread of misinformation" mantle. When the regime decides what the truth is that is an obvious silencing of critics law.
If Trump blatant lies wouldn't have been allowed, the conspi-racists would have had another "reason" to cry foul, instead people published the truth, the pictures and everything else contradicting him and many people which bothered to check for the truth understood what the man stands for so he lost the election. I am pretty sure he wouldn't have lost if he would have not been allowed to lie.
and i think
French government failed handle free speech in case charlie hebdo cartoon
because the president must speak on behalf of all his people
USA government is the best ... even more case (in the server world too)
Edward Snowden? Julian Assange?
In all fairness, they where not just simple whistleblowers in my opinion. They actively disclosed tools, protocols and secrets that those department depend upon to spy upon targets - whom ever they be; citizens, "terrorists", or some sort of oppositionary forces. Ultimately created the eternalblue leak and due to private and governmental shenanigans, it spiraled out of control. It wasn't leaders who took a hit, it was civilians.
I get it, free speech should only be factual without opinion advises and others shouldnt chip in to disprove. And you should just read and take whatever you get and take it as factual without any actual brainpower. Understandable. Lets abolish free thought too
ah .... same as dmca issue
in that case, i hate USA
but,
is it related to freedom of speech ?
DMCA is not free speech, DMCA is protection of copyrights and otherwise commercial products. The laws can get tricky, but DMCA is to protect IP not what some idiot on the internet is trying to preach over some means so long as they're not copying and pasting someone elses stuff and saying it as their own.
edit:
To reiterate, the DMCA is not there for free speech but it is a protection against anyone from copying someone elses work and saying its their own. Plagiarism is kinda stupid, and thats my opinion on it. If you dont like it, well thats not very gouda is it?
Name one thing that hurt civilians.
Even if that would have been the case, it is everyone's duty to disclose war crimes and illegalities. Democracy and human rights always trump the right of governments to spy.
1-2-100-1000 people would have died due to terrorist attacks if the government wouldn't have spied? Perhaps, but if they didn't get involved in war crimes, propped up an apartheid regime with many elements of ethnic cleansing, propped up so many dictators against their people, maybe nobody would have wanted to kill civilians in the first place.
It is governmental action which hurts civilians, not people which disclose their crimes and direct and indirect human rights and common law violations.
I'd rather blame the illuminati
The End
@CheepCluck not sure how you reached to those conclusions but I think you proved my point about free speech lol
wow this got out of hand. thanks @Francisco for clarifying.