It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
You justify it by saying our right to this material trumps the rights of abused minors. I'll say it again until the mods step in and censor this whole exchange. You are sick.
Censorship doesn't meddle with paint that way.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
This is true of all acts of censorship. Not one human being has come under death, injury or corruption because he happened to hear certain combinations of words and sentences deemed dangerous by some censor or bigot...
Rights afforded by governments and laws are not quite the same as the fundamental rights we are born with. "Right" is a dubious term, though.
I wouldn't mind hearing one.
People call and petition for the removal of art all the time.
Other than that I do not understand a word you're saying.
We've pointed out repeatedly in the past the problems you run into with copyright law once you realize that, fundamentally, it violates the First Amendment. While courts have tried to get around this simple fact with convoluted reasoning, and claims that fair use and the (often ignored) idea/expression dichotomy, if you are being intellectually honest, at some point, you need to admit that copyright law and free speech are in conflict. Now, that said, it's perfectly reasonable to then claim that this is an area where it's reasonable to make exceptions to free speech, but I would think that would require a pretty strong burden of proof -- one we have yet to see.
Copyright infringement is a good example of free speech being curtailed. Under the guise of protecting some speech it is used to stifle dissent or opposing views or exposition of cults as in Scientology for example.
Copyright infringement.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert
Copyright infringement.
I known this will be too far for even free speech advocates, but I don’t know why one would want to lay claim or right to “intellectual property”. The beauty of thought and language is that no one can own it, and it is only the truth, not punishment or sanction, that can set matters straight again.
originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: introvert
Copyright infringement.
I known this will be too far for even free speech advocates, but I don’t know why one would want to lay claim or right to “intellectual property”. The beauty of thought and language is that no one can own it, and it is only the truth, not punishment or sanction, that can set matters straight again.