Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Establishment clause (Score 1) 201

The argument against the TMT is that it would be built on sacred ground, essentially for religious reasons. Isn't that an establishment of religion and, therefore, in violation of the first amendment?

No. This is not, in the words of the First Amendment, about passing a law that prescribes a particular religion or impedes the free exercise thereof. This is a dispute about the usage of land. Scientist want to use it to build a telescope. A group of native Hawaiians object on the grounds that the land has historic and spiritual significance. IMHO, both sides have standing, and I hope they work something out that preserves both of their interests.

Comment Re:Militant Slashdot (Score 0) 288

Yes, but 15% of handgun shootings are lethal. Compare that to being shot with a hunting caliber rifle; that was my comparison.

That's a false comparison. Nobody carries around a hunting rifle to, in your own words, "stop a threat."

If you're claiming hand-guns are somehow a "soft" method of defending yourself, then you are sorely mistaken.

Comment Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down.. (Score 1) 828

Wait, are you seriously proposing what I think you are? Slavery is wrong. Period.

I saw what you did there.

Yes, slavery is wrong. So is discrimination. But slavery != discrimination.

The law is wrong, and that law is unenforceable. Either a transaction happens or it doesn't, and if you have a reliable way to discern between 'legal' and 'illegal' cases of "no transaction" then I'd love to hear it.

Okay...

Send someone to the business who is black/gay/whatever to make a transaction. If they are refused, note the reason. Then send in someone white to request the same transaction. If the white customer is served, then you have evidence of discrimination.

Comment Re:Twitter shouldn't be shutting anyone down.. (Score 1) 828

You don't have a 'right' to force other people to produce things for you!

Really. Well then, let's try a thought experiment. We'll take Xiaran's statement and replace "gay" with "black."

How is it a thought crime when the bakery(and I am talking about the one in question that was in the news) said that they are not making a cake for a black couple specifically because they are black?

A baker who refuses to serve someone based on race - or sexual orientation - is breaking the law.

We ended that a long time ago by passing the Fourteenth Amendment, a pretty darn important civil right if there ever was one.

Try again. The Fourteenth Amendment was used in a SCOTUS argument against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff lost.

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 828

The equal-time rule was created by the FCC, not the FEC, and it applies to broadcast media. It's debatable whether Twitter falls into that category. All of its content is created by its users, not Twitter itself.

Listen, I wouldn't be happy if Twitter banned anyone for political reasons. But IMHO, Twitter would be within its rights if it did so. And Twitter is hardly a monopoly.

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 828

Yes, private companies are free to ignore people's civil rights, the same way a private business is perfectly free to deny service to blacks and gays, or a landlord is free to say "Mexicans need not apply" in his rental ads.

You're being sarcastic, but I get you. No, businesses are not free to ignore people's civil rights under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That Act has survived numerous constitutional challenges in the Supreme Court and elsewhere.

If Twitter violates someone's civil rights by expelling them (e.g., by discriminating in some way that is illegal as defined in the Act) then yes, they're on the hook. But they're in no way obliged to provide a platform to anyone for the expression of their views.

Comment Re:It's called Free Speech (Score 1) 828

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment protects free speech from the government's legislative hand. It does not protect it from the actions of other individuals or groups.

In short, Twitter is not the government, so it is not obliged to protect or provide anyone's free speech.

Comment Re:Seriously? (Score 1) 828

Free speech is irrelevant to the case of Trump vs. Twitter.

The First Amendment of the US constitution protects you and me from the government. It does not protect you and me from each other.

But Twitter is not the government. If Twitter wants to kick Trump off its service because they don't like what he says, they're entitled to do so. And the government can't stop Twitter from doing so, because First Amendment. And the government can't stop Trump from starting his own Twitter, again because First Amendment.

Slashdot Top Deals

The 11 is for people with the pride of a 10 and the pocketbook of an 8. -- R.B. Greenberg [referring to PDPs?]

Working...