Hmm. Here's a correction that's prevents the irony in your statement:
"Ad-Hominem attacks are a concession of defeat. The more names they call you, the greater your victory"
Although I would argue that calling someone a name is not a concession of defeat. It is more the demonstration of an inability to make a reasoned argument and/or to contain ones emotions, or a clever way to demonise someone based on the target audience. Arrghgh - I guess it's quite hard to generalise what an ad-hominem attack says about someone.
Hatred of a group isn't bigotry - that's called hatred. Hating people of another race (including white people!) is called racism, not bigotry.
A more practical definition of bigotry is someone who will not tolerate others who have a different opinion. E.g. "You think women already have equal rights??? What!! You are a misogynist!". That statement is the statement of a bigot. An unbigoted statement would be "No, you're utterly wrong - actually they lack the right to [bla bla]".
For the record, I am a left leaning liberal who thinks everyone should have a good education for free, or reasonable fee, and free healthcare, and that everyone has the right to be fed, clothed, and sheltered. But I don't go around demonising those that disagree with me. It is those people, that go around demonising others, that I call bigots. And I am correct in my assertion.
Extortion is "the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats".
Snapchat was threatening to display pro-gun ads during an anti-gun livestream unless the owners paid up. Sounds like the literal definition of extortion to me.
If you read the actual article, you'll find that the person who did that was also being vindictive.
But it's a bit more complicated than that. Many people refuse to believe that their friends have done something "wrong" and will water it down in their own minds. Much like when parents refuse to believe than little darling Johnny could ever have done something like that.
I agree, the police force as an organisation (in each country) needs to put more focus on their members behaving property, and expelling those who don't, but at the same time, it's hard for people to punish their own friends (which are usually the people who are with them on the beat, and know they've done something wrong). Or they'll even believe that the act wasn't wrong.
Also, many police who would otherwise dob in their comrades do not for fear of repercussion.
There needs to be organisational change, but to call 97% of them bad is either mean-spirited or naive.
From Wikipedia: "Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body to anyone who is willing to receive them."
Merriam Webster: "the right to express facts and opinions subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to protect itself from a clear and present danger) guaranteed by the 1st and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution and similar provisions of some state constitutions"
Oxford Dictionaries: "The right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint."
I am capable of communicating the entirety of my ideas and opinions without having to copy someone else's work. So despite ACs rudeness, I don't consider him/her to be wrong about free speech.
But I could be wrong under the Oxford definition because it really depends what entails a "restraint", and being restrained by not being able to reproduce someone;s work could count. But by uploading torrents of the latest movies, I'm not really expressing any opinion to begin with. To actually express something, one would need to cut and add commentary about the movie expressing an actual opinion, which would then fall under "fair use" for most purposes.
The Merriam Webster entry seems to say that freedom of speech can be defined by the government, which I consider absurd.
The Wikipedia entry specifically says "using one's body", so under that definition, breaking movie copyright certainly doesn't count. Doing a rendition of "happy birthday" could count as free speech that is stopped by copyright law imo.
I just need enough to tide me over until I need more. -- Bill Hoest