Re:Pirate Site Not Impressed by Global DNS Blocking Order
by r3trohack3r on Monday August 07, 2023 @08:35AM
(#37033552)
> the government can criminalize some speech and you don't seem to have an issue with it where it's obviously pro-social to do so.
I don’t think I believe this. You’ll need to explain a bit more why I do.
The best I can come up with is “photos are speech, no different than books or pamphlets. “Intellectual property” and pornography are already regulated and there’s no difference between that and other forms of speech. Taking a nude photo without the subject’s consent is the same as writing a book and forcing someone to have their photo taken nude is the same as protesting.” I’d have a problem with this argument but could agree with where it’s coming from.
After reading your response, I’m left feeling like you missed the point of what I said. But maybe I originally missed yours?
I’m sorry for offending you. I assume your profession is law specializing in free speech. It must be exhausting having to engage with the general public on how they feel they feel they should be governed. You’re making me realize I treat my banker the same way, I try to understand (and I have opinions on) the financial instruments I put my savings into before I make the investment.
I’ll preemptively withdraw from this conversation. It’s clear I’m not worthy of having it with you.
I’ll leave with my general sentiment about your original Motte. I vehemently disagree with pro-genocide propaganda but I’ll defend an American’s right to post it.
I don’t think I believe this. You’ll need to explain a bit more why I do.
The best I can come up with is “photos are speech, no different than books or pamphlets. “Intellectual property” and pornography are already regulated and there’s no difference between that and other forms of speech. Taking a nude photo without the subject’s consent is the same as writing a book and forcing someone to have their photo taken nude is the same as protesting.” I’d have a problem with this argument but could agree with where it’s coming from.
After reading your response, I’m left feeling like you missed the point of what I said. But maybe I originally missed yours?
I’m sorry for offending you. I assume your profession is law specializing in free speech. It must be exhausting having to engage with the general public on how they feel they feel they should be governed. You’re making me realize I treat my banker the same way, I try to understand (and I have opinions on) the financial instruments I put my savings into before I make the investment.
I’ll preemptively withdraw from this conversation. It’s clear I’m not worthy of having it with you.
I’ll leave with my general sentiment about your original Motte. I vehemently disagree with pro-genocide propaganda but I’ll defend an American’s right to post it.