News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm'... by 2preserve on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @07:04PM (#14659352)
Are tasteless jokes really something that needs to be protected? Sure, if he was making a joke about the government being corrupt , or the over-reach of courts (ironic), I would be on your side. But are you really gonna die on this hill? You will fight for the right of comedians to insult the personal appearance of disabled people? I don't think it contributes much to the democratic discourse. And don't give me any of those "slippery slope" arguments.
Re:Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm'... by protomyth on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @07:13PM (#14659405)
Yes, and here is a whole movie to explain why: http://canwetakeajoke.com/

> But are you really gonna die on this hill?

Yep, its tasteless, but the alternative allow folks like you to edit what I read and eventually think. I rather deal with the filth then the sterile world of what is acceptable to you with only approved targets of derision and protest. Being in fear of every word uttered to be outside the bounds for some person who might hear would be the purest kind of horror.

Freedom of speech is there to protect the ugly not shine the widely accepted.

> And don't give me any of those "slippery slope" arguments.

Why not? Since that is the whole course of history. People don't lose rights overnight, it comes one drop at a time.

Re:Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm'... by dragonwriter on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @07:09PM (#14659375)
Just to point out, the long dominance of the restrictive “Clear and Present Danger” rule in US free speech analysis was ended in favor of the “inciting imminent lawless conduct” rule (which makes mere theoretically dangerous speech still protected) in case in which KKK leader was challenging a conviction for televised advocacy of “revengeance”.

I don't think most people that are happy about the rule would find the particular actor or action sympathetic; you fight for free speech not because the actor is popular or sympathetic, but because you might need it when you and your actions are not popular or sympathetic.

Re:Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm'... by kofejnik on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @08:16PM (#14659749)
>And don't give me any of those "slippery slope" arguments.

is it because you have no counter argument?

Re:Canada's top court backs order for Google to remove firm'... by djrogers on Wednesday June 28, 2017 @11:20PM (#14660515)
The only kind of speech that needs to be protected is that which is unpopular or repulsive. Popular, nice, warm fuzzy speech needs no protection...