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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the brand new SourceForge HTML5 speed test! Test your internet connection now. Works on all devices. ×

Comment Re:US Legal system (Score 1) 571

The USAToday article is very biased. The defendant mostly screwed himself by losing documents (and then claiming he never received them) and not responding before deadlines.

Your comment seems pretty biased. Or do you have any proof that the defendant did receive the documents and then lied about never receiving them? If you don't have proof then isn't your comment libel?

I find it pretty strange that the article never mentions any proof that the defendant received the documents, like a mail receipt acknowledgement or proof of delivery by some sworn-in court agent.

Comment Re:Hmmm (Score 1) 571

The current case is no longer about the printer. It's about the defendant allegedly corrupting the small claims court. That's a serious accusation which should not be treated as a small courts case. It's as if the printer case was a means to an end: suing in this other court either to have forum for the plaintiff to expose his conspiracy theories, or to properly fleece the hapless defendant.

Comment Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! (Score 1) 405

But free speech doesn't mean you're guaranteed any one particular platform on which to express your views,

Not saying the contrary. Just that what Facebook is doing is still called censoring its users' speech.

and the user has plenty of other places to publish their views.

Until one site gets a near monopoly. Not there yet, but getting there...

Comment Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! (Score 1) 405

I simply disagree that is censorship. Private organization's can chose what they want to say and how, simply because they chose not to speak is not censorship since it is a personal choice

You're looking at this wrong: it's not Facebook which is expressing the deleted opinion, it's the user. The user has no say on whether or not his opinion remains visible so it's not "personal choice". It's censorship.

Comment Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! (Score 1) 405

Most reasonable people could come up with a list of the types of content they feel should be banned; when governments get involved then it becomes censorship, even if we agree with what is banned.

You're wrong here. Censorship can also be carried out by private entities. References: ACLU, Oxford dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia.

Comment Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! (Score 1) 405

Again, I can agree or disagree with their decision but it is their choice to make.Most reasonable people could come up with a list of the types of content they feel should be banned; when governments get involved then it becomes censorship, even if we agree with what is banned.

But you'll notice that what's in the news is not a law forcing Facebook to ban some content, but Facebook freely agreeing to do so. So it's not censorship.

Comment Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! (Score 1) 405

Facebook is not a government entity and thus is free to ban whatever they want;

I did not say otherwise. But you implied they were only banning content based on legal obligations. This is obviously false.

even if it is a stupid decision it's not an free speech issue.

Which is the stupid decision? Banning legal content to please some prudes or agreeing to ban terrorist recruitment campaigns? It seems to me people have a very twisted sense of priorities.

Comment Re: Holy Mutually Exclusive Things, Batman! (Score 1) 405

So why are Gustave Courbet's famous painting and others being banned by Facebook? From what you said publishing the painting is just fine and it's the imminent action that may warrant the police to act. Whoops, said action, lying on a bed, happened in the 19th century so it's not imminent at all, and certainly not illegal. So really, why censor this painting?

Comment Re:Why do they remind you of that? (Score 1) 405

The recent terror attacks have reminded us of the urgent need to address illegal online hate speech

What? What speech was said that triggered the attacks? The attacks would have been done regardless of what anyone said.

This is not about speech triggering the attacks. This is about putting a stop to ISIS' Internet recruitment campaign so the recruitees don't come back to their countries with bombs and AK-47's:
Inside the Mind-Control Methods the Islamic State Uses to Recruit Teenagers
ISIS recruitment methods exposed after Jordanian woman flees secret compound

Comment Re:What could go wrong? (Score 1) 405

Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube & co started down the slippery slope out of their own volition: by banning photos with too much skin or anything that might be considered slightly erotic. Yet, essentially nobody in the US opposed that by shouting "slippery slope" or even found any thing wrong with it.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Wish not to seem, but to be, the best." -- Aeschylus

Working...