"We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet"

[im rickjames bitch]

chris rock - "no white man would trade places with a black man. noone in this audience would trade places with me and im rich"  chris rock is rocktastic 

[Surfrider]

and you think other countries have extremists...

well here is a contradiction for you...the US denounces Iran's leader's comments to wipe israel from the map yet allow people with similar pro-genocidal and pro-racist comments to exist in their country...

First, I agree with Walk, there is a huge difference.? Hardly a contradiction.? Second, in the United States you have the freedom to be stupid and have unpopular beliefs.? Look at NAMBA, the ACLU defends their First Amendment rights.

so you think its ok to have unpopular beliefs so long as they stay unpopular?? after all the difference is that the belief is popular in iran and not in the USA...

Stupid people are protected in what say despite their beliefs.  There is a difference between thinking that someone shouldn't have the right to say it, and thinking that someone shouldn't say it or is stupid for saying it.  It becomes unprotected once there is an imminent threat.

the funny thing is if the guy who voiced these comments downloaded songs illegally he would be fined or jailed...you think thats ok?...it's morally unjustifiable imho

Well, the person downloading the music illegally is stealing someone elses product.  They are getting something for free without paying anything for it.  Getting free music is no more of a free speech issue than me wanting to get a free BMW.

On the other hand, what crime is this guy committing?  Certainly you would not suggest that we treat political speech the same as we treat protection of intellectual property.  Where do we draw the line as to what is acceptable speech?  Some may say calling for the destruction of Israel draws the line; others may say calling Bush Hitler or calling 911 victims Nazis is drawing the line.   

[Axl_owns_dexter]

Thats fucken right D, i wonder if the mods  would allow a subject called...'We have to exterminate black people'...........

We all know the answer to that one.

It becomes unprotected once there is an imminent threat.

So, does telling an audience to exterminate white people qualify?  How do you know one of those brainwashed fucks aren't going to take him up on his plea once they leave.

[Axls Locomotive]

and you think other countries have extremists...

well here is a contradiction for you...the US denounces Iran's leader's comments to wipe israel from the map yet allow people with similar pro-genocidal and pro-racist comments to exist in their country...

First, I agree with Walk, there is a huge difference.  Hardly a contradiction.  Second, in the United States you have the freedom to be stupid and have unpopular beliefs.  Look at NAMBA, the ACLU defends their First Amendment rights.

so you think its ok to have unpopular beliefs so long as they stay unpopular?  after all the difference is that the belief is popular in iran and not in the USA...

Stupid people are protected in what say despite their beliefs.  There is a difference between thinking that someone shouldn't have the right to say it, and thinking that someone shouldn't say it or is stupid for saying it.  It becomes unprotected once there is an imminent threat.

the funny thing is if the guy who voiced these comments downloaded songs illegally he would be fined or jailed...you think thats ok?...it's morally unjustifiable imho

Well, the person downloading the music illegally is stealing someone elses product.  They are getting something for free without paying anything for it.  Getting free music is no more of a free speech issue than me wanting to get a free BMW.

On the other hand, what crime is this guy committing?  Certainly you would not suggest that we treat political speech the same as we treat protection of intellectual property.  Where do we draw the line as to what is acceptable speech?  Some may say calling for the destruction of Israel draws the line; others may say calling Bush Hitler or calling 911 victims Nazis is drawing the line.   

Ahhh my dear ole nightrain, how could it be anyone else...

on the issue of political speech and intellectual property, why not, there may be profit in it...after all intellectual property law has certainly made a dramatic appearance over the last decade since there was a great deal of profit in it...or course this comment is reality singed with sarcasm

as for acceptable speech, where do we draw the line...well im one for voicing where it should be, and you are one for voicing where it is...i believe laws should change for the better...i draw the line at people who instil fear and hatred on others while the ordinary person has to suffer such abuse...all in the name of "free speech" or should that be called the "right to spread hatred"...free speech is a concept people cant get their head around because they cannot perceive its effects on the whole...to me the effects are obvious, to others like you they are not...

your system of law states that stealing someone's online mp3 product is worthy of a jail sentence while spreading such hatred is not...what about racist comments? are you saying they are a denial of free speech? isnt that a restriction? there are plenty of restrictions, people are just blind to them until someone points them out, and that goes for other countries too

[Sakib]

thats wrong idealogy. It shouldn't matter what skin colour you are and unfortunately, even different white people hate each other such as a lot of people in my school hate the French, German, Italians and other races mostly. I feel sorry for the French kikds who come to visit our school and get shredded. It really isn't funny

[Surfrider]

Ahhh my dear ole nightrain, how could it be anyone else...

You and SLC.  Next you will call me Popmetal or Charity Case

on the issue of political speech and intellectual property, why not, there may be profit in it...after all intellectual property law has certainly made a dramatic appearance over the last decade since there was a great deal of profit in it...or course this comment is reality singed with sarcasm

Actually intellectual property made an appearance in our Constitution which was over 200 years ago.  Intellectual property has always been around, but it is just now applying to the average person because it is so easy to steal the property of others via the internet.

as for acceptable speech, where do we draw the line...well im one for voicing where it should be, and you are one for voicing where it is...

Nice characterization

i believe laws should change for the better...i draw the line at people who instil fear and hatred on others while the ordinary person has to suffer such abuse...all in the name of "free speech" or should that be called the "right to spread hatred"...free speech is a concept people cant get their head around because they cannot perceive its effects on the whole...to me the effects are obvious, to others like you they are not...

Is this the type of posts Jarmo was referring to?  You seem to characterize my posts and my position as you see fit.  I agree that there are great effects to these things.  But there are also effects to chilling speech.  I doubt if we broke it down we would really disagree on what should be restricted.

your system of law states that stealing someone's online mp3 product is worthy of a jail sentence while spreading such hatred is not...what about racist comments?

Again, you did not listen to the distinction I wrote in the last thread.  I agree that racist comments to someone's face should be banned.  However, what is a racist comment?  Our country tends to believe that truth prevails.  It is better to attack hate speech with counter speech than to chill overall speech.  I think there are great arguments on both sides. 

Comparing free speech, as in racist speech, to intellectual property is ridiculous.  That is like comparing it to burglary or speeding on the highway.  They are two different things.

[SLCPUNK]

Ahhh my dear ole nightrain, how could it be anyone else...

You and SLC.  Next you will call me Popmetal or Charity Case

Nope...There can be only one GNRNighttrain pal.........

[Axls Locomotive]

Ahhh my dear ole nightrain, how could it be anyone else...

You and SLC.  Next you will call me Popmetal or Charity Case

on the issue of political speech and intellectual property, why not, there may be profit in it...after all intellectual property law has certainly made a dramatic appearance over the last decade since there was a great deal of profit in it...or course this comment is reality singed with sarcasm

Actually intellectual property made an appearance in our Constitution which was over 200 years ago.  Intellectual property has always been around, but it is just now applying to the average person because it is so easy to steal the property of others via the internet.

as for acceptable speech, where do we draw the line...well im one for voicing where it should be, and you are one for voicing where it is...

Nice characterization

i believe laws should change for the better...i draw the line at people who instil fear and hatred on others while the ordinary person has to suffer such abuse...all in the name of "free speech" or should that be called the "right to spread hatred"...free speech is a concept people cant get their head around because they cannot perceive its effects on the whole...to me the effects are obvious, to others like you they are not...

Is this the type of posts Jarmo was referring to?  You seem to characterize my posts and my position as you see fit.  I agree that there are great effects to these things.  But there are also effects to chilling speech.  I doubt if we broke it down we would really disagree on what should be restricted.

your system of law states that stealing someone's online mp3 product is worthy of a jail sentence while spreading such hatred is not...what about racist comments?

Again, you did not listen to the distinction I wrote in the last thread.  I agree that racist comments to someone's face should be banned.  However, what is a racist comment?  Our country tends to believe that truth prevails.  It is better to attack hate speech with counter speech than to chill overall speech.  I think there are great arguments on both sides. 

Comparing free speech, as in racist speech, to intellectual property is ridiculous.  That is like comparing it to burglary or speeding on the highway.  They are two different things.

easy to steal over the internet? have you heard of a black market? theyve existed for centuries...

as for trying to point my comment out, i merely stated an observation...just like you did in this post...i could have found your comment offensive too but imo that achieves nothing...and yes we would disagree

you can compare anything...anything else is limiting your mind

[Surfrider]

Are you telling me that if you put millions and millions of dollars into developing a car that ran on water and then all of the sudden became successful, that you would not care if all of the other manufacturers stole your idea and produced the cars for the same costs without all of the R&D?

We are a capitalist society; stealing ideas hinders capitalism because it makes it so people won't put the money into developing new ideas if they can't get back the money they put in to develop the ideas.  It's really pretty simple.

[Izzy]

We are a capitalist society; stealing ideas hinders capitalism

Seems like a good enough reason to do it then.

Oh those poor mega-corps - theft means no bonus for the CEO this year!

[Axl_owns_dexter]

Oh those poor mega-corps - theft means no bonus for the CEO this year!

Oh, so you don't like technology?  What incentive does someone have to invent something if they won't be properly compensated.

[Surfrider]

Oh those poor mega-corps - theft means no bonus for the CEO this year!

Oh, so you don't like technology?? What incentive does someone have to invent something if they won't be properly compensated.

I guess they just don't understand.  One big reason why a lot of inovation comes from the US is because of such laws.  It doesn't get realized in other countries as much.  Luckily, the US market is big enough that other countries can free-ride off our innovation to little effect.  It is a form of subsidizing other countires: ie, prescription drugs etc.  You can argue about whether the laws extend such protection too long, but to argue that they aren't necessary is just absurd IMHO.

[Axls Locomotive]

Are you telling me that if you put millions and millions of dollars into developing a car that ran on water and then all of the sudden became successful, that you would not care if all of the other manufacturers stole your idea and produced the cars for the same costs without all of the R&D?

We are a capitalist society; stealing ideas hinders capitalism because it makes it so people won't put the money into developing new ideas if they can't get back the money they put in to develop the ideas.  It's really pretty simple.

alas your logic imo isnt sound...stealing ideas hinders capitalism? open source programming is very strong in europe as well as having developed linux which is seen as a superior product to windows...what microsoft has done is that they have kept their ideas to themselves, by your logic that is ok, my mine is stunts development of programs which could be made better and more secure and with far more innovation than keeping the ideas to yourself...for a long time there were no viable alternatives to Windows, thats why Windows is so slow, because of poor programming!

and thats why the PC has become so popular, IBM tried to trademark/copyright the idea of a PC, unfortunately the way they did it left the PC open to copycat machines...and from then on the PC popularity has continued and will continue well into the future...now just imagine if IBM got their trademark/copyrighting of the PC's correct...a world where IBM could only release PC's and noone else...the boom in PC's would not have happened and everything else that has come from that...and you wouldnt be sitting in from of the easily accessible internet today

I guess they just don't understand. One big reason why a lot of inovation comes from the US is because of such laws. It doesn't get realized in other countries as much. Luckily, the US market is big enough that other countries can free-ride off our innovation to little effect. It is a form of subsidizing other countires: ie, prescription drugs etc. You can argue about whether the laws extend such protection too long, but to argue that they aren't necessary is just absurd IMHO.

a lot of innovation comes from the US?  a statement with no basis in fact and no statistics to back it up...i see plenty of innovation everywhere...its human nature to invent, not American nature...and there is plenty of idea stealing in the US as well as everywhere else...free ride off of american technology, now that's completely naive...i wondering who is copying ideas from linux? hmmmm, who invented computers? the British

on another note, one of my friends who works and studies chemical combustion told me that some large oil companies own patents for cleaner technologies which in turn stops other people from developing those ideas/technology...stunted growth i would call it, not innovation...