Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

The Internet's new content cops - meet 'The Deciders'

<< < (2/3) > >>

40hz:
^Nice one Tao! That opens up a whole new can of legal worms for these legislators!

Do you comply with the law that allows your employer to demand access. (I never joined a social site because I was expecting this btw.*) Or do you comply with laws governing contracts for the TOS  you agreed to when you opened your social site account.

Hmmm...bullshit new law of doubtful constitutionality and legality vs long established contract and tort laws plus numerous cases involving online TOS which now have legal precedent following judicial resolution...

Dunno. It could still go either way. ;D ;)

-----------



*Of course it may be a challenge getting an employer to accept being told you don't tweet or have a FB or Google account. I did a sales presentation not too long ago, and a twenty-something contract administrator for the company we were pitching oh-so-casually asked for my FB or G+ account so her department could "communicate informally" with me. When I told her I had neither and preferred to use secure e-mail for all my business electronic communications, she wasn't happy - stopped just short of calling me a liar - and informed me that everybody under the age of 80 has a Facebook or Google+ account. Especially if they're people in "computer and IT related" fields. (Note: this is the second time I've run into this btw.)

I told her: "I've got news for you..."

We learned first thing next day that we wouldn't be getting the contract. She sent us a fax. :-\

Stoic Joker:
We learned first thing next day that we wouldn't be getting the contract. She sent us a fax.
-40hz (April 30, 2013, 02:52 PM)
--- End quote ---

ROFLMFAO   ...But you have to admit, she is half right. Everybody in IT related fields has a FB account ... Because it is only the people that truly are in IT that know better..  ;)

40hz:
ROFLMFAO   ...But you have to admit, she is half right. Everybody in IT related fields has a FB account ... Because it is only the people that truly are in IT that know better..  ;)
-Stoic Joker (April 30, 2013, 05:15 PM)
--- End quote ---

Ah Stoic! There are times when you cut through the chaff and put your finger directly on it. Bravo! ;D ;D ;D

(Wish I thought of that comeback when I was talking to her. Oh well. It's cataloged for next time!) :Thmbsup:

Tinman57:
  All this crap is the result of "political correctness", because all of the touchy-feely people don't want to get their feelings hurt.  Political correctness, in itself, is a violation of freedom of speech that's sugar coated.  Personally I think all of these people are a bunch of tards, and if it were up to them this very post would be deleted.
  The whole idea of the internet was an exchange of idea's and thoughts, and when you start censoring what gets through, you basically cripple the whole concept.  What one person may think of as incorrect, another may find useful and learn from it.

40hz:
The whole idea of the internet was an exchange of idea's and thoughts, and when you start censoring what gets through, you basically cripple the whole concept.
-Tinman57 (April 30, 2013, 08:02 PM)
--- End quote ---



Amen.

Ken White over at Popehat had a nice piece on that which illustrates how even people who truly believe themselves to be advocates of free speech are somehow blind when it comes to their own demands for censorship. In this case journalist Nicholas Jackson's rant against sports commentator Chris Broussard's recent rant about homosexuality and gay marriage.

It seems Mr. Jackson wants to suppress Broussard's rambling bible invoking comments by branding them a form of "hate speech."  He then goes on to completely misinterpret US laws regarding freedom of speech, and present a totally erroneous argument that US courts have historically moved to restrict freedom of speech (and have supposedly done so) when, in fact, US courts have done the exact opposite.

And why does journalist and self proclaimed free speech supporter Nicholas Jackson want comments like Broussrd's retricted or outlawed? Look no further than Mr. Jackson's article written for the Pacific Standard, where he tells us:

...Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has tightened the definition of free speech over and over again. <NOTE from 40hz:This is not true according to attorney Ken White.>
 -
As a 15-year-old, that made me livid. Now, as a 25-year-old, I appreciate those restrictions, because, frankly, I don’t want to listen to your bullshit. In fact, I don’t think the existing restrictions go far enough.
--- End quote ---

Ah yes. Yet another 20-something that doesn't want to listen to any bullshit - other than his own - as Ken's Popehat article points out.


Here's an excerpt:

Chris Broussard is a dinosaur snarling at the oncoming asteroid. Even opposition to gay marriage is doomed in the long term, let alone dwindling opposition to gays and lesbians living openly. If they are angered by people like Jason Collins, Broussard and his ilk are destined for lives of increasingly marginalized bitterness and resentment.

But that's not enough for some who think Chris Broussard's views should be suppressed by force of law. For instance, over at Pacific Standard, Nicholas Jackson uses Chris Broussard as an opportunity to call for censorship and be thoroughly wrong about free speech and the First Amendment. It's typical for people to react to obnoxious speech by waving their arms and proclaiming vaguely there oughta be a law; that's banal. Jackson distinguishes himself by asserting authority and then promoting disinformation about the law, all in the service of an argument that the law should prohibit Broussard's speech.
--- End quote ---

Read the whole article here.
 8)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page