Reviewing a new book, Professor Eugene Volokh (http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/eugene-volokh) (founder of the Volokh Conspiracy, a blog by and for legal scholars, and interested laymen), said little more than that he liked it.
The book's Amazon blurb (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594038074/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=1594038074&linkCode=as2&tag=thefireguides-20&linkId=544GBXQ57RVTER6M) reads:
In Freedom From Speech, author and First Amendment lawyer Greg Lukianoff offers a troubling and provocative theory on why we can expect challenges to freedom of speech to grow in the coming decades, both in the United States and abroad. Lukianoff analyzes numerous examples of the growing desire for "intellectual comfort," such as the rise of speech restrictions around the globe and the increasing media obsession of punishing "offensive" utterances, jokes, or opinions inside the United States. To provide a preview of where we may be headed, Lukianoff points to American college campuses where speakers are routinely disinvited for their opinions, where students increasingly demand "trigger warnings" for even classics like The Great Gatsby, and where students are told they cannot hand out even copies of the Constitution outside of "free speech zones." Lukianoff explains how increasingly global populations are arguing not for freedom of speech, but, rather, freedom from speech.
I bring this up because it's an enduring interest of mine; but also because I've recently argued here about something similar: The plain meaning of words, as applicable to U.S. Constitutional "interpretation" and -specifically- the harms done (actual or potential) by theories of
incorporation (and, more recently, "reverse incorporation") from the 14th Amendment…
(One of my posts was recently "reported" for moderation and, subsequently, edited by a moderator… I don't mean to complain or contend I was treated unfairly — whatever that means in such a context.
Of course, America's 1st Amendment guarantee of the right to free speech has no import here: This is a private discussion board and, as such, offers -whatever other means of relief- the simple expedience of free association.
Still, I would have preferred that the offending post been deleted
in toto… Editing my words, well-meant or not, is akin to plagiarism or the very sort of "interpretation" I was attempting to argue against! unless the original remains available…
Dear Moderator: Make your points in your own posts! If you quote me, give the source, please. :) )
I will be interested to read any comments posted in this thread. The opinions expressed thereby
do matter to me…in an academic sense.
Should this very topic be taken to be a "discussion of moderation," I can only respond with an old punch-line: "Madam, we've already determined
what you are… We're just haggling over the price!"
At any rate: I've said my piece, and will leave to others whatever exploration of substantive issues they find as a result.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcache2.artprintimages.com%2Fp%2FLRG%2F52%2F5271%2FJ3RZG00Z%2Fart-print%2Fnorman-rockwell-freedom-of-speech-february-21-1943.jpg&hash=029106178c838305bd4653fec4eef175" rel="cached" data-hash="029106178c838305bd4653fec4eef175" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/52/5271/J3RZG00Z/art-print/norman-rockwell-freedom-of-speech-february-21-1943.jpg)
Maybe time for Rockwell to paint a slightly different one...
How naive... mentally, not technically.
What most separates man, among other things, from the animal world is man's unique ability to speak, to express his thoughts, to verbally present an idea--a concept, & then to discuss these ideas & concepts with others.
Man is also capable, as we can all attest, capable of expressing an opinion--good, or bad, beneficial, or detrimental, intelligent, or daft, popular, or not.
Who has the right to determine if any persons free speech should be censored, specifically & especially when the speech doesn't call for, or cause, direct violence towards another human being or beings?
I say no man has that right!
There will be some that say, & I love this example, yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a permitted form of free speech.
Wrong!!!!!
It is & should be permitted.
You jump to your feet & exclaim in disbelief ....... It should be permitted you say!!??
Why, I've always been told since being a child that that was forbidden.
Hell, you can't say that!
Well, if I notice the drapes on the stage erupting in flames, I'll take the chance that the Federal Government won't prosecute me for screaming FIRE ...... FIRE!!!
And so should we all.
We should all take this so called 'banned' or 'forbidden' speech & use it as we freely must if the circumstances call for it.
Now that that myth has been addressed, back to the Freedom of Speech.
Was the Freedom of Speech granted to or bestowed upon us by any government of political leader(s)??
No, it is what some call a "Natural Right", a right bestowed upon mankind by a much higher power --- from a time way before memory or record.
Petty political posturing, or any so-called correctness, gives no man the right to censor another man's 'Natural Right to Free Speech', simply because he, or others, may disagree with, or dislike what is, or was said.
I firmly believe [glow=blue,2,300]ALL [/glow] speech is protected by mankind's [glow=lightblue,2,300]Natural Right to the Freedom of Speech,[/glow] & no mortal man has the right to censor another man's speech, specifically & especially when that speech doesn't call for, or cause, direct violence towards another human being or beings.
Now, I could go on, & on, & on, but I think I've made my point.
You may disagree with what I've freely expressed here today, but I, having the Right to Free Speech .... the 'Natural Right' of Free Speech ...... the ever expressed & time honored Freedom of Speech ........ today, like it or not, I used that most basic of all freedoms, to lay out my ideas for all of you to discuss .... freely.
In parting may I freely say, I will defend - with my life if need be - my right, as well as yours, to do so -- so help me God!
A long and eloquent defense for simple name calling in lieu of the precise right to exchange ideas.
Freedom of speech as never been completely unlimited. I say these ranking it as my most cherished freedom. If you yell "Fire! Fire!" if the drapes are indeed on aflame, you need not fear prosecution and it is not a risk. But if you falsely make the cry, causing unnecessary panic and injury as people attempt to flee, it is not protected speech. You have no natural right to do so. You do have a natural right to criticize government authority and this is important as the first line of defense against tyranny.
But the issue at hand his non-governmental agencies. You have the right to make a piece of art that's offensive to many, such as less than flattering images of say Jesus and the Virgin Mary. The gallery also has the right to show or refuse to display your work as part of their free speech. Forums usually have some type of moderation and this one is moderated with feather touch.
A long and eloquent defense for simple name calling in lieu of the precise right to exchange ideas.
Freedom of speech as never been completely unlimited. I say these ranking it as my most cherished freedom. If you yell "Fire! Fire!" if the drapes are indeed on aflame, you need not fear prosecution and it is not a risk. But if you falsely make the cry, causing unnecessary panic and injury as people attempt to flee, it is not protected speech. You have no natural right to do so. You do have a natural right to criticize government authority and this is important as the first line of defense against tyranny......
I defend only
"The Right", so in that I'm glad to see you agree with what I wrote.
I disagree with your statement though
"Freedom of speech has never been completely unlimited."I can, as well as anyone can, say whatever I want to or about you.
The remedy is simply not to listen, show backbone & not let it bother you, or take me to court........All of which is subsequent to me exercising my Unlimited Freedom of Speech.
If I'm willing to pay the price, your statement falls flat on it's face. You can ignore me....
after I said it, & therefore you already heard it.
You can punch me in the nose, but that's only (lets hope)
after I said it & you've already heard it, & also assuming
that I let you (not likely).
I can even scream Fire Fire in a crowded theater, which would be real stupid & could get someone hurt or killed, & end me in hot water,
but all those remedies are after the fact......after I exercised my Freedom of Speech.
Government can fine me, take away a portion of my freedom for a time, but that only comes
after I exercise my Freedom of Speech --- not before.
In this forum, if I wanted to call you a flaming stupid ignorant self-centered one way mother fukin' asshole
(which I won't do mind you because I know your not, & I have no reason to say something that stupid), but for this example lets say I did....& you take offense, whereas your remedy is to report me, in the hopes of getting me banned, or sanctioned for breaking the TOS. As long as I'm willing to pay the price, I can exercise my unlimited right to free speech.....be it probably only one time .... but remember the remedy
only applies after the fact of me exercising my right , after I said it, & after you've read it.
Again, the above litany of abuse was only as an example, & I would never lose control enough to stupidly say something as idiotic as that, but think about it .........
Do you see my point?Also, in closing might I say, all -- each & every remedy -- is conditional on me already expressing my freedom of speech, not before, & none of those remedies can stop me from exercising it again as long as I'm willing to pay the price for exercising it.
That is unless the remedy exercised against me is fatal. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/RIP_GHOST.gif)
Then, & only then, is my freedom of speech actually & truly limited. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)
"Free Speech" may--or may not-- be limited in The Public Square, but it does have limits on just about every forum system I know. Engage in name-calling here, expect to get moderated. If I didn't do it, somebody else would-- we have several here--because this is a privately owned forum.
Here in the States, we have "Freedom of the Press" enshrined in the First Amendment. Now about that: Freedom of the Press really extends only to those who actually own the press. If you write a letter to the editor and expect it to appear on the editorial/personal opinion pages-- it might appear or it might not. Write a scathing letter about the paper's editorial policies and I think I can guarantee that your letter will never see the printing press.
Here, the admins took some time to write a "Terms & Conditions" section--- the "T&C" button above-- that tells you what you can and can't get away with. It's the usual stuff you'll find on most forums-- and I think you'll find that "personal attacks" will get moderated.
"Free Speech" is not an absolute, as with all other "freedoms" you have to exercise some responsibility with it.
Ahhhh---- yelling "Fire-- fire!!!" in a crowded theater just may terminate your right to free speech fatally, as it happens. You could be trampled in the panicked rush to the exits that you started. So--- that might not be one of the better examples to use.
Somewhat off the topic of forum posts, but still relevant to free speech is how readily people accuse each other of taking away free speech when they're doing no such thing. For instance, when Phil Robertson made statements against gay people and in favor of marrying 15 year olds some, conservatives in particular, accused "the Left" (often not actually Leftists) of attempting to strip him of 1st amendment rights. In fact, "the Left" merely made counter arguments to Robertson and did not attempt to take him to court, etc. In doing so, Robertson's critics were merely exercising their free speech, which has nothing to do with infringing his. People seem to forget that free speech flows both ways.
Ahhhh---- yelling "Fire-- fire!!!" in a crowded theater just may terminate your right to free speech fatally, as it happens. You could be trampled in the panicked rush to the exits that you started. So--- that might not be one of the better examples to use.
"the Left" merely made counter arguments to Robertson and did not attempt to take him to court, etc.
My points exactly, in MJM's example above, the person yelling "Fire--Fire" may lose his Freedom of Speech permanently along with his life,
but that was only
after he exercised his Right to Free Speech, albeit for the last time. Nothing stopped him before his exercising his right.
Another point I make, as evidenced in 'Coony's post, without knowing or caring anything about the subject matter, I know that this guy Robertson, whoever he is, said what he said, & the so called "Left" heard what he said, a perfect example of Free Speech exercised, & note if there was a remedy (being taken to court), it would only be available
after the fact, & not before. So if Robertson, knowing he might be taken to court for what he says, is aware of the consequences, & decides to express himself again anyway, he is free to do so, & then he might, or might not, be subject to the remedy ---- not before.
It seems basically, IMHO, that free speech is alive & well, but it might just mean that people seem to be more readily offended by it than ever before, & therefore seek remedy more often than ever before. This may be aided because government has made these remedies more readily available than ever.
This raises more question:
Are people becoming too thin skinned, (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/CatchTheNaNaNa_Smaller.gif) rushing too hastily to claim they were offended by what most might call, trivial matters?
Could this be some sort of surfacing feminine trait, that some in government seem too eager to accommodate to, maybe hoping to get the complainer's vote(s)?
Are people becoming too thin skinned, (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/CatchTheNaNaNa_Smaller.gif) rushing too hastily to claim they were offended by what most might call, trivial matters?
It's hard to say. You might deplore the "PC" of today, but it seems one set of "taboo" subjects have been replaced by another. In the old days, being say or speaking on behalf of gay rights on a Tv show or being outed as gay would have gotten you blacklisted. There seems to have always been some form of political correctness, even before the term existed or at least came into widespread use. All that's changed is what's considered politically correct. What was interesting about the Robertson incident is that his defenders managed to "forget" his comments about marrying girls, not yet women, This was actually worse than his is anti-gay comments. It seems folks have a tendency to overlook and idle's other speech and behavior, if he/she says one thing they agree with.
Oh, Robertson is the Duck Dynasty guy. Since he made his comments, he his ratings have nosedived. Rather or not that was a remedy of the marketplace or if a show about hunting ducks has gone stale is hard to say. The A&E network's remedy for his remarks was a very brief suspension, far weaker than what would have earned someone with controversial viewpoints in the past.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_Dynasty#Seasonal_ratings [/url)
note if there was a remedy (being taken to court), it would only be available after the fact, & not before
That's the case in countries with freedom of speech, such as the US. In other countries some "offensive" comments, especially against the government, could earn the remedy of you not being heard from again - perhaps because your vocal cords are buried six feet under ground. Some people complain of censorship in this country, all the while being able to air their views without fear of a legal penalty (or perhaps they do have unfounded fear.)
Are people becoming too thin skinned, (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/CatchTheNaNaNa_Smaller.gif) rushing too hastily to claim they were offended by what most might call, trivial matters?
No, nothing's any different. In 1951 Willem Frederik Hermans was taken to court for having one of his literary characters say:
De katholieken! Dat is het meest schunnige, belazerde, onderkruiperige, besodemieterde deel van ons volk! Maar die naaien er op los! Die planten zich voort! Als konijnen, ratten, vlooien, luizen. Die emigreren niet! Die blijven wel zitten in Brabant en Limburg met puisten op hun wangen en rotte kiezen van het ouwels vreten!
Catholics! Those are the most filthy, crazy, sleazy, buggered part of our people! But they're fucking like crazy! They reproduce! Like rabbits, rats, fleas, lice. They don't emigrate! They remain seated in Brabant and Limburg with pimples on their cheeks and rotten teeth from eating wafers!
The court case by the salafistic illiberal freedom-of-speech hating socialists and Catholics (who said stuff at least as bad about capitalists and unbelievers all the time*) was not, of course, successful. Naturally, the same happened when Wilders compared the Qur'an to Mein Kampf. But is it any different? No, I think not.
* Probably without ever clearly saying they're actually talking about intercourse at all — they were and are great tone trolls.
No, nothing's any different. In 1951 Willem Frederik Hermans was taken to court for having one of his literary characters say:
Or when Alan Ginsburg was put on trial in 1957 for his poem
Howl and Shig Murao was jailed for selling it and Lawrence Ferlinghetti tried for publishing it. The book was seized by US customs using the "think of the children" argument (the exact words were "You wouldn't want your children to come across it." ) Many of what are today considered great literary works were banned from schools, libraries, as in the case of Ginsberg, their author's put on trial.
Freedom of speech... words taken by the wind.
Relativism has already finished with it, no matter what people want to say no one will actually listen.
That's what free of speech and free from speech means.
Speech was substituted by a permanent noise, empty of any content.
Perhaps not. There seen to be less cases of people actually being to court for publishing controversial works critical of the government, society, etc than before. In that case, the OP might be correct in "Free Speech ain't what it used to be!" but wrong in how; it might have actually increased at least in the sense of what's legally permissible without fear of prosecution. For instance, is allowed to continue practicing their freedom of speech and distorted religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church). In the past, the fore mentioned Phil Robertson himself might have faced legal trouble on obscenity charges for his word choice.(he got a little graphic talking about rectums and vaginas.) His words most certainly would not have been printed as is in a mainstream publication, lest the publishers face legal heat. Today, the only "censorship" he got was conflicting opinions.
In that case, the OP might be correct in "Free Speech ain't what it used to be!" but wrong in how; it might have actually increased at least in the sense of what's legally permissible without fear of prosecution.
That's what I'm saying, you can say whatever you want because it will not matter. Words were emptied of content and/or consequence, be it for insults or if you have something to say constructive. Instead of no more censorship, censorship it's total because no message passes.
It's a matter of how, as you say. How relativism disguised as total freedom destroys societies.
College students in California and three other states filed lawsuits against their campuses Tuesday in what is thought to be the first-ever coordinated legal attack on free speech restrictions in higher education.
Vincenzo Sinapi-Riddle, a 20-year-old studying computer science, alleged that Citrus College in Glendora had violated his 1st Amendment rights by restricting his petitioning activities to a small "free-speech zone" in the campus quad.
According to Sinapi-Riddle's complaint, a campus official stopped him last fall from talking to another student about his campaign against spying by the National Security Agency, saying he had strayed outside the free-speech zone. The official said he had the authority to eject Sinapi-Riddle from campus if he did not comply..............CONTINUED (http://tinyurl.com/lvs3ys2)
It was shocking to me that there could be so much hostility about me talking to another student peacefully about government spying. - Vincenzo Sinapi-Riddle, college student
Can it be that the bastions of higher education, Colleges & Universities, seemingly want to control the free exchange of ideas!!??
Much more about this shocking fact can be found here (http://bit.ly/1tlHPE5)
We've discussed that before. Slightly problematic for that cause is that FIRE, the group that "red flags" colleges for infringement apparently considers rules against harassment on the basis of race, gender or sexual orientation infringements on of first amendment rights as they do with East Tennessee State University (http://www.thefire.org/schools/east-tennessee-state-university/). So they undermine their own credibility. To obtain alarming sounding figures such as 58% of schools restrict free speech, they throw in rules that have nothing to do with free exchange of ideas (a little original intent anyone?) Even so, by their own account, the percent of infringing colleges has declined substantially from 75%.
Of course infringement occurs, but we need separate what's genuine infringement and what's not.
For instance, from the link:
Chicago State University faculty members Phillip Beverly and Robert Bionaz sued over what they said were repeated attempts to silence a blog they write on alleged administrative corruption.
This is bad, if it's true. But where's the blog? What's the university's answer to the allegation. What evidence do the faculty members have and how do we know the allegations aren't libel?
As far as Googling it goes, put in the right search terms and it will tell you what you want to hear, even if it's not the true.
Aarrgh!
As far as Googling it goes, put in the right search terms and it will tell you what you want to hear, even if it's not the true.
[glow=blue,2,300]
Only for you 'Coony, only for you!!! [/glow] (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
Only for you 'Coony, only for you!!!
I know you're teasing me, but there might but some truth to, but not just for me. The search engines are starting to smart for the user's own good in some cases. It possible for a liberal user and conservative to enter the same search terms, but get different result based on the site they're more likely to click on. This can be problematic if you're looking for objective sites on politically charged subjects. So if you tell somebody "Google it!" the sites on top might be what you think they are, in fact they might credence to viewpoints opposite of yours.
Even the news is like that. Fox tells conservative viewers what they want to hear. The basic news piece might be correct, but tons of bias thrown. But MSNBC does the same for liberal viewers.
But back on the subject. "Free speech zones" are dubious. However, in the university not too long ago, my free speech was never stifled. I regularly turned in essay that were politically opposed to the professor and still made Magna Cum Laude. Meanwhile, the cases brought up by FIRE raise more questions than answers. A student steps outside the "free speech zone" to talk to another student about NSA activities. He gets reprehended under the harassment codes. Why harassment? Something doesn't add up. Was the student pestering the other guy after being repeatedly told to leave him alone? Based on my personal experience, there has to be more to the story.
So I have to stand by what I said before. Based on past prosecutions merely for selling books, McCarthyism in the 1950's, etc there actually seems to be more free speech then in the past. That's not mention anyone can "print" there own newsletters, publish their opinions online without having to through the expense of purchasing a printing press or having another company print it up for them. There's not only seemingly less censorship, but more opportunities to share your ideas with the world.
An example about Google's tendency to bias things according to your past searches: Several months back, I looked up some stuff for securing freight on my van. Clicked on a few links, looked at some websites. Can you guess what Google Ads serves up to me today on every website I visit that has ads? Yep--- tons and tons of stuff for trucks.
Politically, it'll be the same. Look up a few conservative websites, and Google will slowly learn you have Tea-Party sympathies and from then on everything you see will have a Right-Wing slant to it.
We all have a tendency to seek "truth" that tickles our ears. Whether what tickles our ears is actual TRUTH or not is another matter.
From a while back, I offer this essay (http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/sites/default/files/66_Stan_L_Rev_1241_Epstein.pdf) for your consideration…
Why? Because fundamental rights are — fundamental! Free speech. Free association. Religious freedom.The right to keep and bear arms, otherwise known as "self-defense AND revolution"… :) Are there others?
Certainly! And they fit comfortably with these named.
Those that don't are -shall we say?- suspect?
No legal theory obviates rational debate and political controversy or accommodation to the changing views of the polity. (The "evolved" view of the 14th Amendment comes close, though; its champions make, always, the same argument: Give us what we'll settle for now, or you'll get what you least desire -eventually…) Well, no legal theory that comports with the U.S. Constitution.
Several months back, I looked up some stuff for securing freight on my van.
Soooo... Any of you guys ever clear your browsing history?
Several months back, I looked up some stuff for securing freight on my van.
Soooo... Any of you guys ever clear your browsing history?
Gee, I dunno---- think my wife, if I should ever have one, would get upset if she sees I've been looking at load-restraining-bars, ratchet straps and moving-blankets?
Several months back, I looked up some stuff for securing freight on my van.
Soooo... Any of you guys ever clear your browsing history?
Your browsing history isn't communicated to anyone and I find it useful on occasion. Tracking cookies are a different matter, and I think Firefox including stuff like that under advanced history settings is a perfect illustration of the general problems with its recent (4+) interface changes.
When people feels the need to encrypt their messages there's no free speech.
When people feels the need to encrypt their messages there's no free speech.
q@j$# th86&& w?/:*.
:lol:
We have an expression for that, with the truth you lie to me.
Most free speech is worth every penny.
Your browsing history isn't communicated to anyone and I find it useful on occasion.
Yessir, you're rite of course. From Chrome you can clear everything from settings>history>clear browser data. I should take care to be more specific. ;)
I don't so much use my history so I just clear it all.
Politically, it'll be the same. Look up a few conservative websites, and Google will slowly learn you have Tea-Party sympathies and from then on everything you see will have a Right-Wing slant to it.
We all have a tendency to seek "truth" that tickles our ears. Whether what tickles our ears is actual TRUTH or not is another matter.
It's more than what the search engine thinks you're political bias is, though. I remember when my sister was looking to buy a new car and suddenly I was being served ads for cars as well.
Another problem with free speech also relates to online. With employers and prospective employers increasingly checking our Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc we can now lose a job or be denied employment because the boss disagrees with political viewpoints expressed online. The result can be a damper on free speech. People fear the government intrusion on free speech and cite colleges "censoring" (many of those cases turn out to be dubious since the "free speech" in question is sexual and other harassment.) In fact, so much censorship is now in the private sector and thus the person being censored is not under the protection of the First Amendment or similar articles in state constitutions.
It's more than what the search engine thinks you're political bias is, though. I remember when my sister was looking to buy a new car and suddenly I was being served ads for cars as well.
And then suddenly if you're searching for pictures of jaguars you're getting pictures of Jaguars, even though "normally" you'd get a mixture of both.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcache2.artprintimages.com%2Fp%2FLRG%2F52%2F5271%2FJ3RZG00Z%2Fart-print%2Fnorman-rockwell-freedom-of-speech-february-21-1943.jpg&hash=029106178c838305bd4653fec4eef175" rel="cached" data-hash="029106178c838305bd4653fec4eef175" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/52/5271/J3RZG00Z/art-print/norman-rockwell-freedom-of-speech-february-21-1943.jpg)
Maybe time for Rockwell to paint a slightly different one...
How naive... mentally, not technically.
How about this modern "Rockwell"?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Flyc-george-sand-la-chatre.tice.ac-orleans-tours.fr%2Feva%2Fsites%2Flyc-george-sand-la-chatre%2FIMG%2Fjpg%2Frockwell-redneck-2.jpg&hash=188a2717598c1030ee5f58d84ad42f80" rel="cached" data-hash="188a2717598c1030ee5f58d84ad42f80" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://lyc-george-sand-la-chatre.tice.ac-orleans-tours.fr/eva/sites/lyc-george-sand-la-chatre/IMG/jpg/rockwell-redneck-2.jpg)
An example about Google's tendency to bias things according to your past searches: Several months back, I looked up some stuff for securing freight on my van. Clicked on a few links, looked at some websites. Can you guess what Google Ads serves up to me today on every website I visit that has ads? Yep--- tons and tons of stuff for trucks.
[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPwalBC-7zM[/VIDEO]
Try
Abelssoft GOOGLE CLEAN Mod Edit: Link and code deleted.SmileyFaze check your PM. [glow=blue,2,300]
MY EDIT: [/glow] I previously posted a password to a promotional download for the GoogleClean Software.
I was correctly made aware that that password was only available to the magazine's subscribers, or anyone who purchased the magazine.
I was probably in error for publishing that information (which I got from a magazine on a doctor's office free reading table), so I scoured the net to find a fix.
I found a site --
My Digital Life -- which posted a link & info about
Abelssoft's own promo offer ➤ for everyone.
Basically all they want is for you to provide them with your name & email-address.
If you do they, Abelssoft, will e-mail you an unlock-key
for their full version software. I tried it, & got the unlock key within 30 seconds of submitting.
Here is the link to the
My Digital Life's website's article providing all the information & simple steps you need to follow to get your 100% Legitimate Promotional Full Version Unlock Key, & a link to get the software from Abelssoft.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/PointRt.gif)
http://www.mydigitallife.info/abelssoft-googleclean-free-download-with-unlock-license-key/
Sorry for the initial confusion, but I hope this resolves the problem & provides everyone with this software --- which I myself have been using for a few days with no dramas. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/awright005.gif)
Perhaps not everyone is tied and trundled by Microsoft…
If people don't even have dignity anymore how could they aspire to free speech?
First give dignity back to the people, free speech will follow naturally without any effort.
First give dignity back to the people
What? :) Is
dignity yet another one of those "rights" to be doled out by a benevolent government? A "commodity" to be bartered for votes?
A man loses his dignity by behaving in an undignified manner…
FreeSpeech is real .
but it will much better if also avoid Logical fallacies when using that . :sherlock:
What? :) Is dignity yet another one of those "rights" to be doled out by a benevolent government? A "commodity" to be bartered for votes?
A man loses his dignity by behaving in an undignified manner…
In fact I was thinking more in solving the problem by way of revolutions than in "take care of everything" governments, so your anti "european social rights" it's a bit dislocated. :)
This is a very important point, dignity exists when fundamental human rights exists. That's the first role of governments, to assure those rights, the rest is secondary in the big scheme of things.
Bel, the problem is that government has no interest whatsoever in ensuring human rights. The more "benevolent" the government is, the less interest it has in human rights.
We here in the States are slowly but surely losing the rights we had enshrined in the Constitution, as we give more and more power to the governments-- state and federal, mostly-- over aspects of our lives they had no business in. One of these days we will wake up as serfs to the bureaucrats in Washington and we won't even know how that happened.
We here in the States are slowly but surely losing the rights we had enshrined in the Constitution, as we give more and more power to the governments-- state and federal, mostly-- over aspects of our lives they had no business in. One of these days we will wake up as serfs to the bureaucrats in Washington and we won't even know how that happened.
Have you not noticed that you enshrined also the government in the self-same constitution, not just the alleged rights? Perhaps high time to read the thing...
i am afraid FreeDom , freedom of speech , etc .
are just 'gimmick' ...
not the substance .
yes , it is true allowed to freely do anything , speak about anything .
but if that actions harms another people .
then those one have to deal with some certainty and some consequences .
in this case the law , the constitution , etc
Bel, the problem is that government has no interest whatsoever in ensuring human rights. The more "benevolent" the government is, the less interest it has in human rights.
We here in the States are slowly but surely losing the rights we had enshrined in the Constitution, as we give more and more power to the governments-- state and federal, mostly-- over aspects of our lives they had no business in. One of these days we will wake up as serfs to the bureaucrats in Washington and we won't even know how that happened.
Which rights have you lost?
==========================
Article 1 Right to Equality
Article 2 Freedom from Discrimination
Article 3 Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
Article 4 Freedom from Slavery
Article 5 Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
Article 6 Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law
Article 7 Right to Equality before the Law
Article 8 Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal
Article 9 Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
Article 10 Right to Fair Public Hearing
Article 11 Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
Article 12 Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Article 13 Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
Article 14 Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
Article 15 Right to a Nationality and the Freedom to Change It
Article 16 Right to Marriage and Family
Article 17 Right to Own Property
Article 18 Freedom of Belief and Religion
Article 19 Freedom of Opinion and Information
Article 20 Right of Peaceful Assembly and Association
Article 21 Right to Participate in Government and in Free Elections
Article 22 Right to Social Security
Article 23 Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions
Article 24 Right to Rest and Leisure
Article 25 Right to Adequate Living Standard
Article 26 Right to Education
Article 27 Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community
Article 28 Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document
Article 29 Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development
Article 30 Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights
This should be interesting, especially since conservative voters have tendency to actually be against a few of those rights and have repeatedly tried to suppress them and against multiple groups of people. They very fact that they're not all seeing a shrink for the cognitive dissonance from claiming to be in favor of limited government (and perhaps even believing they are), but expanding it everytime somebody else's rights hurts their feelings suggest limited self-awareness. That and when the Republican president does something, it's good. If his Democratic successor does the same thing it will destroy the control, take away liberty, etc. It's a wonder the whole lot of them haven't been committed to an asylum yet, such incoherence would drive any self-aware person mad. Oh...right, lack of the same.
Rights that allow you not to have to worry about unwarranted search and seizure. A policeman pulls you over for a blown tail-light, technically he doesn't have the right to just start searching your car. I read too many stories recently where police have done just that, on trumped-up charges that the person they pulled over "might" be involved in the drug trade. Once "drugs" are suspected-- because the police dog was tricked into indicating your vehicle had them-- your rights became history. The police root through your vehicle like hogs, and after they find nothing-- they don't even offer an apology.
Right now as I write this, my state representative who is running for re-election is screaming that her Republican opponent, if elected, will cause senior citizens to lose social security, cause children to be tossed off of school buses and cause husbands to beat their wives-- I kid you not. Me thinks the Democrat party just might have their fingers in too many pies, and maybe I shouldn't be dependent on re-electing a Democrat to be sure I get goodies from government. Oh yeah--- her Republican opponent is supposedly a hated Tea Party member-- no proof of that of course. What ever shall we do??
We just signed over the health-care to Washington. What do you think will happen the next time we have a government shut-down and the president needs leverage to use against congress? You better believe he'll shut down health-care so panicked people will call congress to get congressmen to kowtow to the president. Everything else is on the chopping block, what makes you think that's any different?
i dont think those Democrat or republican can do much ..
much better or much worst...
those People are just temporary employee's ..
that for somehow designed by the Structuralists Of republic and democracy ..
which as intended it created infinite Conflicts between government and Oposition .
to keep the balance .
not sure if Mericans also using trias politica ..
just let say the balance to prevent dictatorism , mobocracy , etc .
-------------------
their job is to Govern and be the Constitution developer .
not searching drugs in cars .
Rights that allow you not to have to worry about unwarranted search and seizure. A policeman pulls you over for a blown tail-light, technically he doesn't have the right to just start searching your car. I read too many stories recently where police have done just that, on trumped-up charges that the person they pulled over "might" be involved in the drug trade. Once "drugs" are suspected-- because the police dog was tricked into indicating your vehicle had them-- your rights became history. The police root through your vehicle like hogs, and after they find nothing-- they don't even offer an apology.
That reminds me of civil forfeiture (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks):
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks[/video]
not sure if Mericans also using trias politica ..
Not sure? Really? Some of them sound like they think they invented it. ;)
Rights that allow you not to have to worry about unwarranted search and seizure. A policeman pulls you over for a blown tail-light, technically he doesn't have the right to just start searching your car. I read too many stories recently where police have done just that, on trumped-up charges that the person they pulled over "might" be involved in the drug trade. Once "drugs" are suspected-- because the police dog was tricked into indicating your vehicle had them-- your rights became history. The police root through your vehicle like hogs, and after they find nothing-- they don't even offer an apology.
Ah yes, civil forfeiture, planted drugs and whatnot if they don't like ( the colour of ) your face. Read way too many stories like that.
Right now as I write this, my state representative who is running for re-election is screaming that her Republican opponent, if elected, will cause senior citizens to lose social security, cause children to be tossed off of school buses and cause husbands to beat their wives-- I kid you not.
Let me guess, the opponent is a 'states rights' ( winkwink ), 'limited government' ( nudgenudge ), screw the poor, teabagger?
We just signed over the health-care to Washington.
So you're all on medicare? I mean, those of you that weren't on VA already.
What do you think will happen the next time we have a government shut-down
You mean next time some asshole on an ego trip tries to score brownie points with the knuckledragger demographic?
Please tell me again how that was a good idea.
You better believe he'll shut down health-care so panicked people will call congress to get congressmen to kowtow to the president. Everything else is on the chopping block, what makes you think that's any different?
And here I thought he's going to cancel the 2016 elections, outlaw religion and impose socialism with sharia law.
So you're all on medicare? I mean, those of you that weren't on VA already.
A place I used to work at showed Fox News in the breakroom. They described the ACA a "government takeover of 17% of the American economy." I guess it's too difficult for Fox viewers to use Google and about 15 seconds to realize their favorite network is outright lying to them. You can't even say it was a slant to the story. It also doesn't occur to them at in no other country, healthcare spending even approaches that level and that the out the US spends far more per capita than countries with full socialized medicine with poorer results.
Bel, the problem is that government has no interest whatsoever in ensuring human rights. The more "benevolent" the government is, the less interest it has in human rights.
We here in the States are slowly but surely losing the rights we had enshrined in the Constitution, as we give more and more power to the governments-- state and federal, mostly-- over aspects of our lives they had no business in. One of these days we will wake up as serfs to the bureaucrats in Washington and we won't even know how that happened.
You, Americans, have bureaucrats in Washington deciding your lives.
We, Europeans, have bureaucrats in Brussels deciding our lives.
The difference? Brussels is not my Country. Washington is yours.
Right now as I write this, my state representative who is running for re-election is screaming that her Republican opponent, if elected, will cause senior citizens to lose social security, cause children to be tossed off of school buses and cause husbands to beat their wives-- I kid you not.
Alert the freakin' media, somebody is mudslinging - something that hasn't been going on by all parties (even those that are now extinct) since the founding of the country.
Me thinks the Democrat party just might have their fingers in too many pies, and maybe I shouldn't be dependent on re-electing a Democrat to be sure I get goodies from government.
Goodies such as constitutional rights? Goodies such not having big brother make their moral decisions for you? The strength of the Libertarians is that, unlike Republicans, they really believe in limited government. Oakdale comes to us from California via Massachusetts and you're from Illinois. I don't think either one of you has experienced a Republican monopoly on power (the state, county and city. Under them, I couldn't even buy a beer (one of those 3.2% numbers) because it was 11 am on Sunday, My sister had trouble legally selling her house because their was slightly not enough grass over the septic tank. Limited government my ass.
You're still going on about Blue Laws, Sang? Amazing! :)
Why do Americans blur any discussion? amazing.. and they want freedom of speech... even more amazing, do they?
They think they do Oakdale but in practice they often have to fight for what has been stumped into them from earliest school. Time after time there have been cases for people being hemmed in, persecuted and the rights enshrined in that constitution are not as practical as they were brained into. It must be damn awful for peole to relapse they have been hoodwinked.
A "better" indictment (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=502.msg29684#msg29684) of the Scots system of education and government could not have been made…
(I hope you experience a rectal prolapse soon: Keeping your head up there for so long must be, at least, uncomfortable… But -perhaps- you like the smell? It's sort-of like haggis, isn't it? :) )
Oh OakdaleTFL, I have never liked haggis and said so ion the past. Reminds me too much of self-appraising ex-colonists!
It would seem spamming this crap on forums is a good way to get raided, if you're actually selling fake passports or not :p Fucking genius.
I wonder how many people, not the slightest interested in a fake document, would visit the site out of curiosity.
I wonder what dire consequences would ensue.
I won't be trying it.
No such host.
I believe it's an initial spam test (a feeling out process), which depending on it's criteria & outcomes may just be the precursor of
"fun to come".
I didn't bother to check before, but Smiley's assessment seems to be correct.
raccoon@Clockwerk:~$ ping salefakepassport.cc
ping: unknown host salefakepassport.cc
....
raccoon@Clockwerk:~$ traceroute salefakepassport.cc salefakepassport.cc
salefakepassport.cc: Name or service not known
Cannot handle "host" cmdline arg `salefakepassport.cc' on position 1 (argc 1)
Tut tut language there Sanguinemoon. There are plenty of descriptive words without declining to that standard. :no: :blush:
I think this (http://www.theonion.com/articles/it-sadly-unclear-whether-this-article-will-put,37715/) belongs here… (Of course, it's the Onion! :) )
—————————————————
@RJ: I seem to recall –I drinks a bit, so my memory may be deficient– that Jaybro gave you a goodly supply of commas — where the heck did you use them? (You seem to have run out…)
Would you like to re-load?
—————————————————————————
BTW: What did I miss? How did we jump from RJ and me sparring to spam and sites offering bogus passports?
I think this (http://www.theonion.com/articles/it-sadly-unclear-whether-this-article-will-put,37715/) belongs here… (Of course, it's the Onion! :) )
—————————————————
@RJ: I seem to recall –I drinks a bit, so my memory may be deficient– that Jaybro gave you a goodly supply of commas — where the heck did you use them? (You seem to have run out…)
Would you like to re-load?
He uses them as superfluous apostrophes.
He uses them as superfluous apostrophes.
I hate to admit it — but I've seen such frequently in store signage and public notices. I'd like to -since I've been in California for decades, where many are Spanish-speakers first and English-speakers little to none…say that it is the fault of foreigners. But it ain't. I remember the same patterns in New England, where I grew up.
It's part of the language.
I'm particularly and persistently interested in punctuation. (I use it often oddly…) But it's not "the hill I want to die on…"
————————————————————————
Did I miss this? :)
He uses them as superfluous apostrophes.
…he wants to
possess things nobody would presume he does…? :)