168747 pts ยท March 2, 2014
*funny pictures
We're kept in small plastic balls and only let out to fight with each other.
Diamonds are forever
Wait, there was an election?
Don't get rid of Apu. Just get rid of the Simpsons. It hasn't been good for decades.
What tipped you off? The "sexy feet," or the "suckmytoesslut?"
Does...godzilla vote?
Obviously she misspelled it to throw people off the scent.
The larger child, I think.
But that's the core notion of the marketplace of ideas, which freedom of speech must protect to be meaningful.
Within the context of ideas, at least, communicating what you believe to be true. Not covering threats.
2) person," but not "you cannot say -this.-" That is the vital difference that the ECHR fails to protect.
No. But it does provide absolutist protection for -ideas.- Laws may say "you cannot say this now," or "here," or "repeatedly to this
Not much of a warlord to be honest. Only led twelve men, and they barely conquered anybody.
The relevant part being that the communication of a sincerely-believed idea is not a crime. (Though in the past it sometimes has been)
"You can say what you want, unless we make it illegal" is a worthless guarantee, basically.
It's not hard to get, it's just clearly not freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Danger is my middle name.
Not politicians, just internet people.
Particularly, in the US, the protection for one's ability to communicate a sincerely-believed idea is pretty absolute.
No, I am Spartacus.
Then (2) is a long list of all the reasons why, in fact, you don't.
I mean, have you seen article 10? It begins very nicely with 1. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."
A non-absolutist protection for speech ends up only protecting the speech nobody wants to take away anyway. As we see here.
I'd certainly hope not.
Demanding that people ignore listed requirements or lie, basically. :|
Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with that as a source myself.
Well, Muhammad might have been able to bring suit against her for it, but I think he'd probably have a tough time of winning.
Actually, it's on the ECHR page itself. https://www.echr.coe.int Go to Recent Judgements, then E.S. vs Austria.
That's a good question. It seems like a professional source, but it's odd that I can't find any direct western media about it.
*funny pictures
We're kept in small plastic balls and only let out to fight with each other.
Diamonds are forever
Wait, there was an election?
Don't get rid of Apu. Just get rid of the Simpsons. It hasn't been good for decades.
What tipped you off? The "sexy feet," or the "suckmytoesslut?"
Does...godzilla vote?
Obviously she misspelled it to throw people off the scent.
The larger child, I think.
But that's the core notion of the marketplace of ideas, which freedom of speech must protect to be meaningful.
Within the context of ideas, at least, communicating what you believe to be true. Not covering threats.
2) person," but not "you cannot say -this.-" That is the vital difference that the ECHR fails to protect.
No. But it does provide absolutist protection for -ideas.- Laws may say "you cannot say this now," or "here," or "repeatedly to this
Not much of a warlord to be honest. Only led twelve men, and they barely conquered anybody.
The relevant part being that the communication of a sincerely-believed idea is not a crime. (Though in the past it sometimes has been)
"You can say what you want, unless we make it illegal" is a worthless guarantee, basically.
It's not hard to get, it's just clearly not freedom of speech in any meaningful sense.
Danger is my middle name.
Not politicians, just internet people.
Particularly, in the US, the protection for one's ability to communicate a sincerely-believed idea is pretty absolute.
No, I am Spartacus.
Then (2) is a long list of all the reasons why, in fact, you don't.
I mean, have you seen article 10? It begins very nicely with 1. "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression."
A non-absolutist protection for speech ends up only protecting the speech nobody wants to take away anyway. As we see here.
I'd certainly hope not.
Demanding that people ignore listed requirements or lie, basically. :|
Yeah, I wasn't thrilled with that as a source myself.
Well, Muhammad might have been able to bring suit against her for it, but I think he'd probably have a tough time of winning.
Actually, it's on the ECHR page itself. https://www.echr.coe.int Go to Recent Judgements, then E.S. vs Austria.
That's a good question. It seems like a professional source, but it's odd that I can't find any direct western media about it.