1357: "Free Speech"

[yanfan388]

I don't think much of a coherent distinction can be drawn between things people "intend" to say and things that they just happen to say because it was bouncing around in their skulls. At least, not a distinction I consider relevant to judging someone's character. If he were self-aware about his own racism and seeking to change, I'd give him a pass, but I don't think he is beyond being sorry he got caught.

this may be true sometimes, but i think often a person just looks for something to say that will hurt the other person the most.

you can never be sure. who said something like, i'd rather ten guilty were let go rather than punish one innocent person?

that sort of applies to authomatic spam filters, too, don't you think?

[KrytenKoro]

I don't think much of a coherent distinction can be drawn between things people "intend" to say and things that they just happen to say because it was bouncing around in their skulls. At least, not a distinction I consider relevant to judging someone's character. If he were self-aware about his own racism and seeking to change, I'd give him a pass, but I don't think he is beyond being sorry he got caught.

this may be true sometimes, but i think often a person just looks for something to say that will hurt the other person the most.

you can never be sure. who said something like, i'd rather ten guilty were let go rather than punish one innocent person?

that sort of applies to authomatic spam filters, too, don't you think?

I gotta say, I don't agree with that person. Guilty people, like spam, have the ability (and history) of going out and hurting people again. Sure, we should make every effort to remove the incidence of false positive, as long as we aren't also increasing the rate of false negatives. Guilty people going free isn't a harmless whoopsie, families have had their lives ruined because an elderly or very young family member naively responded to malevolent spam.

Show me a working system where no innocent people or e-mails are punished first, then I'll look into whether I should agree with you or not. Until then, you might as well be saying "I'd rather everyone have free cake all the time, than have to go without a single day"

[orthogon]

You can almost always trade off false positives against false negatives without increasing the complexity of the system, simply by adjusting the thresholds. To improve one whilst keeping the other constant is usually more difficult. For example, you could ensure zero false positives by always giving a negative result, e.g. by never punishing anyone. The "ten guilty men" quote implies a desire that the false negative probability should exceed the false positive probability by a factor greater than 10.
(Strictly it's the joint probabilities: [guilty and acquitted] or [innocent and convicted], which also depend on those tricky priors...)
The factor of ten can be justified, on a utilitarian basis, if the expected harm due to locking up an innocent person is ten times that of releasing a guilty one. In the former case there is a certainty of several bad things: loss of earnings, reputation, relationships, mental suffering, etc. In the latter case there is a probability of reoffending, with a certain resulting damage. What answer you get depends on a whole load of assumptions, but there are certainly scenarios where a factor of ten is plausible. If the punishment is "an eye for an eye", then the reoffending rate has to be 10%. But I suspect that real reoffending rates are higher and punishments in developed countries are less severe than the effects of the crime on the victim (particularly in jurisdictions without capital punishment.) This suggests a factor somewhat less than 10 is appropriate. On the other hand, an rights-based argument would weigh the cost of punishing the innocent more heavily than the collateral damage done by the freed offender, on the grounds that one is an action by the state whilst the other is an action by an individual merely made possible because of an omission by the state.

[yanfan388]

the exact quote by sir william blackstone was "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". i should have googled it instead of trying to remember rumpole of the bailey!

this has been a fundamental principle of british and american justice for centuries, related to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". wikipedia has historical background tracing it back to the bible. look up "blackstone's formulation" there.

it's kind of interesting that the statement was made during the salem witch trials, that benjamin franklin said "one hundred" instead of "ten", and cambodia's dictator pol pot turned it around so "It is better that ten innocent persons suffer than that one guilty person escape".

[Lenoxus]

You can almost always trade off false positives against false negatives without increasing the complexity of the system, simply by adjusting the thresholds. To improve one whilst keeping the other constant is usually more difficult. For example, you could ensure zero false positives by always giving a negative result, e.g. by never punishing anyone. The "ten guilty men" quote implies a desire that the false negative probability should exceed the false positive probability by a factor greater than 10.
(Strictly it's the joint probabilities: [guilty and acquitted] or [innocent and convicted], which also depend on those tricky priors...)
The factor of ten can be justified, on a utilitarian basis, if the expected harm due to locking up an innocent person is ten times that of releasing a guilty one. In the former case there is a certainty of several bad things: loss of earnings, reputation, relationships, mental suffering, etc. In the latter case there is a probability of reoffending, with a certain resulting damage. What answer you get depends on a whole load of assumptions, but there are certainly scenarios where a factor of ten is plausible. If the punishment is "an eye for an eye", then the reoffending rate has to be 10%. But I suspect that real reoffending rates are higher and punishments in developed countries are less severe than the effects of the crime on the victim (particularly in jurisdictions without capital punishment.) This suggests a factor somewhat less than 10 is appropriate. On the other hand, an rights-based argument would weigh the cost of punishing the innocent more heavily than the collateral damage done by the freed offender, on the grounds that one is an action by the state whilst the other is an action by an individual merely made possible because of an omission by the state.

I agree with this analysis on the whole. One thing it leaves out is a well-established tendency of governments to err on the side of over-punishment, not under-punishment, which is one of the reasons for "innocent before proven guilty". Arguably, a "ten to one" principle is also meant to be corrective.

[addams]

the exact quote by sir william blackstone was "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". i should have googled it instead of trying to remember rumpole of the bailey!

this has been a fundamental principle of british and american justice for centuries, related to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". wikipedia has historical background tracing it back to the bible. look up "blackstone's formulation" there.

it's kind of interesting that the statement was made during the salem witch trials, that benjamin franklin said "one hundred" instead of "ten", and cambodia's dictator pol pot turned it around so "It is better that ten innocent persons suffer than that one guilty person escape".

Nice.
Well said.

Yes.
The early Americans were famous for being Innocent.
We often see ourselves in others. They saw hope.

Ben Franklin was not a Choir Boy.
Yet; He believed in an Old Fashioned American way...
...some darned thing.

It seems in the US today, Pol Pot's Policies are an easy sell.
I wanted to believe we were better than that.

I did not know Pol Pot.
I started a paper on The Land and Her People During and After.
I did not finish the paper. I did not make it through the Lit. Review.

That was some Dark History.
I did begin to form an opinion or two.

"War is Bad for Children and Other Living Things."
It is particularly Bad for Children to grow up in War.

A child with Leadership Potential will excel in Peace Time.
A intelligent child that takes on Adult responsibilities is a child that may be very competent as an Adult.

During War such a child may not develop in ways that fit my spoiled little Peace Time eyes.
When children are exposed to Violence, It does not effect them all the same.

The bright, The capable, The Shining Stars.
They hurt and are hurt in War.

A Bright child may become a Religious Fanatic.
There was no religion. It was for The Cause.

If an adult can do it.
A precocious child can do it.

I still can't laugh about it.
Can you?

[KrytenKoro]

this has been a fundamental principle of british and american justice for centuries, related to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". wikipedia has historical background tracing it back to the bible. look up "blackstone's formulation" there.

It's been a fundamental ideal, more like. It has absolutely never been achieved.

[addams]

this has been a fundamental principle of british and american justice for centuries, related to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". wikipedia has historical background tracing it back to the bible. look up "blackstone's formulation" there.

It's been a fundamental ideal, more like. It has absolutely never been achieved.

Yes, it has.
It is an ideal that has been achieved.

Human beings make mistakes.
We will always have an error rate.

Very rarely are we Too Easy on each other.
When we seem like we are Too Gentle we are often exhibiting Great Strength.

Throughout History, Thugs, Gangsters and Bad Guys look Tough.
The Really Tough Guys don't usually look like that.

One way to explain it is by looking at Bikers.
The ones on the FUCKING LOUD motorcycles Look Tough.
The ones on Push Bikes riding through the Mexican Mountains Are Tough.

Take the Machines away and what do you have?
A Soft Overweight Tough Guy and a Lean Mean Moving Machine.

Who's Tough?

[yanfan388]

this has been a fundamental principle of british and american justice for centuries, related to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". wikipedia has historical background tracing it back to the bible. look up "blackstone's formulation" there.

It's been a fundamental ideal, more like. It has absolutely never been achieved.

Yes, it has.
It is an ideal that has been achieved.

Human beings make mistakes.
We will always have an error rate.

Very rarely are we Too Easy on each other.
When we seem like we are Too Gentle we are often exhibiting Great Strength.

Throughout History, Thugs, Gangsters and Bad Guys look Tough.
The Really Tough Guys don't usually look like that.

One way to explain it is by looking at Bikers.
The ones on the FUCKING LOUD motorcycles Look Tough.
The ones on Push Bikes riding through the Mexican Mountains Are Tough.

Take the Machines away and what do you have?
A Soft Overweight Tough Guy and a Lean Mean Moving Machine.

Who's Tough?

i've enjoyed your unique poems a lot, addams, and think you must be a natural contrarian and optimist in spite of hard times. stay tough!

otherwise this site is boring. people here know there can only be one one possible way of looking at things. the natural curse of youth, which will find its antidote in time, probably.

bye!

[addams]

Bye?
Where are you going?

I have things to say.
Like, "If a person in a Uniform does not have working knowledge of basic Sociology and Psychology terms and concepts, that is not an Officer, that is a Goon."

Who allows that sort of writing and talking?
Who would Shout that person down?

Who wants to take Continuing Ed?
Who decides what is Valuable Continuing Ed?

High School Drop Outs?
Men and Women that Work their way Up?

Sissies sitting in ClassRooms?
Who??

[blowfishhootie]

Someone wondered if Sterling was still actually owner of the Clippers. At this moment in time he is, but a vote is forthcoming among the 29 other owners to force him to sell. My impression is that it is a formality -it requires three-quarters vote, but it will likely be unanimous or close to it. This, including the lifetime banishment, is in accordance within the terms contract Sterling willingly entered as an NBA franchisee.

But I guess those other parties to the contract aren't themselves exercising free speech, and the reason for that is because Donald Sterling hates black people.

[KrytenKoro]

people here know there can only be one one possible way of looking at things.

Wondering if you've read more than a few pages of this own thread...

[Weeks]

otherwise this site is boring. people here know there can only be one one possible way of looking at things. the natural curse of youth, which will find its antidote in time, probably.

Glad to know your expert assessment!

bye!

Hope we don't see you ever again!

[addams]

I spoke to a Real Live, seemingly intelligent human being.
I think we were being Frank. Both of us.

We discussed; "What critical thinking tool can The Common Man use?"

I think, The Common Man can ask and answer:
1. What do you know?
(one long or three short sentences)

2. How do you know it?
(site source)

I thought that was enough.
He said, "No. One More."

3. Why?


Why? Why do you know that?
He was thinking of questioning the source?

I did not understand the thinking.
Why? Why do I know it? Why?

How does that help me think about it?
Why? Why What? Why do you know?

Most of what I know I either Had to Know and Prove I know it.
Some of what I know, I was a witness to. Weird stuff.

That is How Science is Done!
What did you see?
Weird stuff.

Can we make it do it, again?
Maybe. Let's make it happen to someone else, this time.

If we can do it, again; It's Science.
I know Politics can make it happen, again.

I think Politics can use Science and not be Science,
The way a Blonde can drive a car without being a Mechanic.

What do you know about The Rich and The Famous, today?
Where is that Maylay Flight? Why do I Know that?

[avocadoowl]

Someone wondered if Sterling was still actually owner of the Clippers. At this moment in time he is, but a vote is forthcoming among the 29 other owners to force him to sell. My impression is that it is a formality -it requires three-quarters vote, but it will likely be unanimous or close to it. This, including the lifetime banishment, is in accordance within the terms contract Sterling willingly entered as an NBA franchisee.

But I guess those other parties to the contract aren't themselves exercising free speech, and the reason for that is because Donald Sterling hates black people.

Yeah, when I first heard how the NBA might force him to sell the team, I thought it sounded a bit too much, forcing a private individual to sell private property. But, now that I know it's written out in the contract that that is a consequence, well, I wouldn't be surprised that all of these "rawr, free speech, no consequences" people are also "rawr, freedom of contract NO MATTER WHAT" people.

[yanfan388]

otherwise this site is boring. people here know there can only be one one possible way of looking at things. the natural curse of youth, which will find its antidote in time, probably.

Glad to know your expert assessment!

you're welcome.

bye!

Hope we don't see you ever again!

phhhttt!!! You lose.

and on that appropriately childish, twelve-year-old note, i really am gone. i couldn't resist waiting around just a bit to see what sort of insults you would think up, weeks. i knew there would be one.

[PeteP]

otherwise this site is boring. people here know there can only be one one possible way of looking at things. the natural curse of youth, which will find its antidote in time, probably.

Glad to know your expert assessment!

you're welcome.

bye!

Hope we don't see you ever again!

phhhttt!!! You lose.

and on that appropriately childish, twelve-year-old note, i really am gone. i couldn't resist waiting around just a bit to see what sort of insults you would think up, weeks. i knew there would be one.

Pot calling the kettle black.

[Pfhorrest]

I wouldn't be surprised that all of these "rawr, free speech, no consequences" people are also "rawr, freedom of contract NO MATTER WHAT" people.

FWIW as someone in favor of completely unrestricted free speech, I am also rather vehemently anti-contract, particularly where a contract would restrict what a person does with their own property. If you own it, it's yours and everyone else can fuck off so long as you're not doing anything to anything of theirs; what else does "own" mean? (HOAs especially get my goat here; in what sense does one "own" a home if they are required to both pay another party and obey that party's rules regarding use of it or else lose possession of it?)

[Lenoxus]

But, now that I know it's written out in the contract that that is a consequence, well, I wouldn't be surprised that all of these "rawr, free speech, no consequences" people are also "rawr, freedom of contract NO MATTER WHAT" people.

I do think a reasonable argument has been made against total-freedom-of-contract when it comes to fine print, especially of all those Internet agreements everyone signs without reading. Some of them involve an agreement to never sue the company, for example.

However, I wouldn't extend that sympathy to the consequences of buying a major sports team, since you really should have a lawyer look at that first.

[rmsgrey]

But, now that I know it's written out in the contract that that is a consequence, well, I wouldn't be surprised that all of these "rawr, free speech, no consequences" people are also "rawr, freedom of contract NO MATTER WHAT" people.

I do think a reasonable argument has been made against total-freedom-of-contract when it comes to fine print, especially of all those Internet agreements everyone signs without reading. Some of them involve an agreement to never sue the company, for example.

However, I wouldn't extend that sympathy to the consequences of buying a major sports team, since you really should have a lawyer look at that first.

At least here in the UK, the general opinion among people I've talked to who happen to be lawyers, but speaking strictly unofficially, is that if anyone ever tried to make a typical EULA stand up in court, it would get thrown out - just the fact that you have to "buy" the software in order to find out the terms of the license is enough to prevent it from being a valid contract. In general, the "terms and conditions" on websites are on very shaky legal ground since it's widely accepted that people don't actually read them...

[addams]

otherwise this site is boring. people here know there can only be one one possible way of looking at things. the natural curse of youth, which will find its antidote in time, probably.

Glad to know your expert assessment!

you're welcome.

bye!

Hope we don't see you ever again!

phhhttt!!! You lose.

and on that appropriately childish, twelve-year-old note, i really am gone. i couldn't resist waiting around just a bit to see what sort of insults you would think up, weeks. i knew there would be one.

Pot calling the kettle black.

And; You are calling the kettle back.

Is the argument going to fan back up?
(popcorn?)

(shh.) like golf.
it's Week's turn.

On a more serious Note.
Contacts? Yep. Contacts.

I thought it could not happen to me.
I was forced to sell something I did not want to sell.

I am not as interesting at a Sports Fan Owner.
Darn! Still.

The mechanisms of taking a Millionaire's Hobby team and taking the Home and Business of a Rank and File, Nobody are different.
Destroying a Nobody is boring? Or; It is an embarrassing thing to watch? Or; Like the Loch Ness Monster, something not Real?

[Weeks]

Not the first someone has come back just to get a little more of me. *eyebrow waggle*

[KrytenKoro]

and on that appropriately childish, twelve-year-old note, i really am gone. i couldn't resist waiting around just a bit to see what sort of insults you would think up, weeks. i knew there would be one.

Song by Davina.

[PinkShinyRose]

I wouldn't be surprised that all of these "rawr, free speech, no consequences" people are also "rawr, freedom of contract NO MATTER WHAT" people.

FWIW as someone in favor of completely unrestricted free speech, I am also rather vehemently anti-contract, particularly where a contract would restrict what a person does with their own property. If you own it, it's yours and everyone else can fuck off so long as you're not doing anything to anything of theirs; what else does "own" mean? (HOAs especially get my goat here; in what sense does one "own" a home if they are required to both pay another party and obey that party's rules regarding use of it or else lose possession of it?)

I think there is a difference between a contract that allows you to own something (I transfer this property if...) and a contract that you're somehow forced to sign after buying something (I already transferred this property but demand a contract before I give you the keys).

In the Netherlands the land, the buildings built on it and the apartments in those buildings sometimes have different owners, this makes your notion complicated. Home owner associations are generally the owners of the building (and generally land) here, so you effectively pay rent for your apartment to be connected to a stairwell/elevator, to have it supported by the building and for the land use. I suspect a similar idea is behind the phenomenon where you live.

Contracts also allow you to do things with your belongings, nobody would rent your property if there is no guarantee they can actually use it after paying. You shouldn't be forced/tricked into a contact though, luckily laws often prevent that.

[Pfhorrest]

Contracts also allow you to do things with your belongings, nobody would rent your property if there is no guarantee they can actually use it after paying.

Not to start this argument again, but in case you somehow haven't seen me arguing about it all over the forums already, I don't consider renting out a property "doing something with your belonging" (it's letting someone else do someone with your belonging [which I think is fine] and obliging them to pay you in return [where I think it becomes a problem]); and I consider the fact that contract reform like I seek would destroy the viability of rent a good thing, and that effect was a major factor in motivating my interest in contract reform.

[gmalivuk]

So if I want to live in a bulding but don't have enough money to buy a building for myself...?

[Pfhorrest]

So if I want to live in a bulding but don't have enough money to buy a building for myself...?

Have you really missed all of the other arguments about this that have happened here? I'm always more than happy to explain how I would have things work and why and how I would work around the various problems you're probably anticipating just for the sake of explaining what my position is for those who are genuinely curious about it, but every time we get started on that here it devolves into a nasty fight with the same people every time and I don't really want to just go do that over again to no effect. I was just explaining to PinkShinyRose that the catch of "but then you couldn't rent things out" is actually something I'd consider a plus and so not a catch as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway the short glossy answer to your question is you would make many small regular payments to the building owner just as you would if you were renting it, except you could eventually stop paying once you'd paid enough, and there would be ways to recover the money you'd paid if you moved later. And there's lots of other fiddly little technical differences that would arise too. I'm happy to spell out what they are, and how the combination of laws and market forces would bring about such arrangements, and why I think they would be better than what we have now, if you're really curious, but see paragraph above first if you really want to start that here again.

[WibblyWobbly]

So if I want to live in a bulding but don't have enough money to buy a building for myself...?

Have you really missed all of the other arguments about this that have happened here? I'm always more than happy to explain how I would have things work and why and how I would work around the various problems you're probably anticipating just for the sake of explaining what my position is for those who are genuinely curious about it, but every time we get started on that here it devolves into a nasty fight with the same people every time and I don't really want to just go do that over again to no effect. I was just explaining to PinkShinyRose that the catch of "but then you couldn't rent things out" is actually something I'd consider a plus and so not a catch as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway the short glossy answer to your question is you would make many small regular payments to the building owner just as you would if you were renting it, except you could eventually stop paying once you'd paid enough, and there would be ways to recover the money you'd paid if you moved later. And there's lots of other fiddly little technical differences that would arise too. I'm happy to spell out what they are, and how the combination of laws and market forces would bring about such arrangements, and why I think they would be better than what we have now, if you're really curious, but see paragraph above first if you really want to start that here again.

I'd actually be interested to hear the longer version of this idea, as I'm not sure how it would work in practice. If you're inclined to explain but feel it wouldn't be good to do so here, feel free to PM me.

[KrytenKoro]

Have you really missed all of the other arguments about this that have happened here? I'm always more than happy to explain how I would have things work and why and how I would work around the various problems you're probably anticipating just for the sake of explaining what my position is for those who are genuinely curious about it, but every time we get started on that here it devolves into a nasty fight with the same people every time and I don't really want to just go do that over again to no effect. I was just explaining to PinkShinyRose that the catch of "but then you couldn't rent things out" is actually something I'd consider a plus and so not a catch as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway the short glossy answer to your question is you would make many small regular payments to the building owner just as you would if you were renting it, except you could eventually stop paying once you'd paid enough, and there would be ways to recover the money you'd paid if you moved later. And there's lots of other fiddly little technical differences that would arise too. I'm happy to spell out what they are, and how the combination of laws and market forces would bring about such arrangements, and why I think they would be better than what we have now, if you're really curious, but see paragraph above first if you really want to start that here again.

It sounds to me like replacing the perputual debt of the insurance-and-rent state with something similar to "rent to own", and it would also eliminate despicable stuff like a landlord evicting longterm tenants and forcing them on the street in order to hike the rent for someone who can pay more. Basically, when you pay for things, you actually get them; you aren't obliged to pay the majority of your paycheck just for the temporary privilege of staying alive.

I'm VERY much in favor. Any chance we could make eminent domain laws much stricter while we're at it?

[gmalivuk]

Have you really missed all of the other arguments about this that have happened here?

You mean those giant off-topic wall-of-text posts you've made about it in various other unrelated threads? No, can't say as I have read those. If you'd like to not have to keep rehashing your ideas, perhaps start a thread on this topic specifically and direct people there when they question your notions.

Anyway the short glossy answer to your question is you would make many small regular payments to the building owner just as you would if you were renting it, except you could eventually stop paying once you'd paid enough, and there would be ways to recover the money you'd paid if you moved later.

So, rent to own, but with the additional caveat that you the "renter" can back out of the arrangement at any time and be paid by the property owner?

What possible motivation would there be for property owners to do such a thing?

[Pfhorrest]

Have you really missed all of the other arguments about this that have happened here?

You mean those giant off-topic wall-of-text posts you've made about it in various other unrelated threads? No, can't say as I have read those. If you'd like to not have to keep rehashing your ideas, perhaps start a thread on this topic specifically and direct people there when they question your notions.

Off-topic walls of text like you're goading me into now? I never start this with "here is my dissertation on why rent is bad and how to replace it, page 1 of 50". I make a small comment, or reply to a question, then other people ask questions, I answer them, they ask more questions, or make counterarguments, and it spirals out of control. I'm not tired of rehashing my ideas, I just don't want to have the same argument with the same people when I already know what the outcome is going to be, what the counterarguments are going to be, what my responses to those are going to be, and that in the end it will all end in frustration and nothing productive. So I'm trying to curb that now, asking if you really want to get into that. I'm not just going to hide my position entirely to avoid discussing it, but I'm trying to give us the option of not making a huge thing out of it if that's all that's coming.

Also, in my experience saying "I've already spelled all this out here, just go read that" is usually perceived as rude in discussions. I am in the process of writing an essay to host on my personal website that I might link people to for further details if they're interested and it seems appropriate to do so in a given discussion.

Anyway the short glossy answer to your question is you would make many small regular payments to the building owner just as you would if you were renting it, except you could eventually stop paying once you'd paid enough, and there would be ways to recover the money you'd paid if you moved later.

So, rent to own, but with the additional caveat that you the "renter" can back out of the arrangement at any time and be paid by the property owner?

No and no. Not that at all.

Wibbly and Kryten, I'm interested in discussing this further with you guys as it sounds like that might be something other than just completely pointless and frustrating. Maybe I will start a group PM or something.

[Weeks]

Also, in my experience saying "I've already spelled all this out here, just go read that" is usually perceived as rude in discussions. I am in the process of writing an essay to host on my personal website that I might link people to for further details if they're interested and it seems appropriate to do so in a given discussion.

But it's convenient to have a thread for it, and if you aren't deliberately rude about it the worst that'll happen is someone simply doesn't go there and read it, in which case you don't have to respond any further.

[PinkShinyRose]

So if I want to live in a bulding but don't have enough money to buy a building for myself...?

Have you really missed all of the other arguments about this that have happened here? I'm always more than happy to explain how I would have things work and why and how I would work around the various problems you're probably anticipating just for the sake of explaining what my position is for those who are genuinely curious about it, but every time we get started on that here it devolves into a nasty fight with the same people every time and I don't really want to just go do that over again to no effect. I was just explaining to PinkShinyRose that the catch of "but then you couldn't rent things out" is actually something I'd consider a plus and so not a catch as far as I'm concerned.

In which threads did you make those arguments? I'm curious.

[shagbark]

Do you really want to live in a country where that's all "free speech" means?

Suppose that you write on your blog that you support gay marriage. Then your boss fires you and your landlord kicks you out of your apartment because of it.

Is that free speech?

Yet, if someone else writes on their blog that they oppose gay marriage, and their boss fires them and their landlord kicks them out of their apartment, that's okay with you.

[gmalivuk]

Also, in my experience saying "I've already spelled all this out here, just go read that" is usually perceived as rude in discussions. I am in the process of writing an essay to host on my personal website that I might link people to for further details if they're interested and it seems appropriate to do so in a given discussion.

But it's convenient to have a thread for it, and if you aren't deliberately rude about it the worst that'll happen is someone simply doesn't go there and read it, in which case you don't have to respond any further.

Plus it's, like, completely standard to direct people to threads where something is on topic, when it's not on topic for the current one but another one exists where it is.

Edit: I'm going to just completely ignore the idiot above me who once again thought they had a reasonable opinion despite not reading a single page of this thread. I humbly suggest others might do the same.

[SecondTalon]

.

(And whoever sent me that board warning: I didn't read it and you can bite me.)

Consider yourself bitten.

[PinkShinyRose]

I find it interesting that this thread is 31 pages long, is mostly limited to discussing a topic far more specific than the comic is addressing (although it might have been the direct motivation for drawing it), yet it only contains about 10 original arguments on the subtopic.

Back on-topic (= comic ≠ Eich): based on the comic I don't think the point was specifically about Eich's situation (due to him not being mentioned and some of the examples being irrelevant to that case). What I am wondering about is whether the comic refers specifically to the US (the 1st amendment thing obviously does, but it could also just be meant to parry an argument often used in the US situation), whether the comic intends to discuss legality or morality and whether the point of the comic was intended as absolute or simplified to fit into the comic.

We will of course never know what was truly intended (unless Randall tells us) so my wondering is mostly on the same level as when dissecting the message of shakespeare novels and French revolution propaganda posters (whose authors intentions will never be clarified) instead of trying to speculate on the true intentions of the author (note my use of "the comic" as the subject instead of "the author").

Is it okay to discuss the content of the message of the comic instead of the implications or correctness of that message?

I think the comic does mostly discuss US legal aspects on the first row (what do you call a set of horizontally aligned frames?), mostly due to it's abidance by what I gather is the content of the 1st amendment to the US federal constitution, and the third frames direct reference to the amendment.

I'm less sure about the second row though: especially the last two frames suggest a more morally oriented message which could be based on a range of values, based on the US constitution, the idea during the French revolution, human rights conventions, or anything in-between (probably in-between the former two). I think it's mostly a moral message because explaining the motivations of the door-showers probably has no legal relevance but motivations may be relevant in a moral context.

[addams]

.

(And whoever sent me that board warning: I didn't read it and you can bite me.)

Consider yourself bitten.

Yey! It took a while.
We Got a Bite!

[zmic]

Do you really want to live in a country where that's all "free speech" means?

Suppose that you write on your blog that you support gay marriage. Then your boss fires you and your landlord kicks you out of your apartment because of it.

Is that free speech?

Yet, if someone else writes on their blog that they oppose gay marriage, and their boss fires them and their landlord kicks them out of their apartment, that's okay with you.

According to the comic, the free speech amendment means that the government "cannot arrest you for what you say". This suggest that the first amendment only protects you from acts by the government, which is disingenuous at the very least. The first amendment actually says that there can be no law that abridges the right of free speech. The conditions under which you can be fired are subject to law. A law that lists the expression of your political opinion as a valid reason for dismissal would be unconstitutional. Meaning that the first amendment protects you against certain actions of your boss -- a private person.

If Eich went to court for this, I think he would win easily.

[OmniLiquid]

Do you really want to live in a country where that's all "free speech" means?

Suppose that you write on your blog that you support gay marriage. Then your boss fires you and your landlord kicks you out of your apartment because of it.

Is that free speech?

Yet, if someone else writes on their blog that they oppose gay marriage, and their boss fires them and their landlord kicks them out of their apartment, that's okay with you.

According to the comic, the free speech amendment means that the government "cannot arrest you for what you say". This suggest that the first amendment only protects you from acts by the government, which is disingenuous at the very least. The first amendment actually says that there can be no law that abridges the right of free speech. The conditions under which you can be fired are subject to law. A law that lists the expression of your political opinion as a valid reason for dismissal would be unconstitutional. Meaning that the first amendment protects you against certain actions of your boss -- a private person.

If Eich went to court for this, I think he would win easily.

*facepalm* *headdesk* "Ouch, my flipper!"

I barely know where to begin...

1. The first amendment says Congress can't do a few things, and says nothing about whether other entities can do those things, so it does in fact only protect you from the government.

2. The government not preventing something is not the same as the government passing a law to do that thing (since there's no passing of a law involved, you see).

3. The law regarding who you can fire for what reason doesn't list every reason someone can fire you. It lists reasons someone cannot fire you.

4. What already prevents companies/landlords from kicking people out of their jobs/homes for little reason is that doing so harms their reputation and loses them business. Government is only needed when that stops working (monopolies or similar). As we've been saying this whole time, speech has consequences, and that is a good thing.

5. Resigning =/= getting fired.

In accordance with the law of fives, my rebuttal is done.