Meshugger

Well I know when I mentioned this before you made a few jokes about it but in the South African constitution our clause about free speech really works, "say what you want but you can't impact the dignity of a person." Yes the words "dignity" can be subjective but its not hard to work out what you should or shouldn't say I'll be nice this time though. As long as you do not claim that SA has free speech or freedom of expression, then it is ok with me.

Hate speech laws only sweep unwanted opinions under the rug, just because no one is saying anything publicly, it doesn't mean that the opinion exist in itself. Feel-good laws if you may call it so. Also, these kinds of laws give further leeway for hindering discourse since they by design (what is 'hate speech'? hard satire? stereotyping?) are making people, and the state, to able to use the law to silence any percieved hate.

Most importantly, did you remember to "mind the gap"?

At least the setting is something different compared to the rest of the industry.

Hitler-card pulled. This thread is over!

Not from a design perspective. How do you design a system with an infinite access options? Sure your statement will make a philosophy major happy. But a little clue should be the employment prospects of philosophy majors. Practicalities, mother****er. ;p I somehow missed this. The current design of the Internet is that access is userbased. Moral and ethical constraints aside, try to change it to service providerbased is costly and will in the long run only benefit the big telecom-companies on the expense on everyone else. See Shadysands link for example. TV is already providerbased with licenses, and all the beaurocracy that surrounds it. Why on earth turn the Internet the same? Control of information? Naaaah ;-P

He has now become the very ghost that he chased. R.I.P.

Almost. But i did break a smile though.

I had a family dinner yesterday at the parent's house. Mom had made a nice big steak. Then me and my brother checked out my dad's new car. It had a glass heads-up display like in the sci-fi movies that you saw as a kid. Then while I was driving home, the song "Solsbury Hill" by Peter Gabriel started playing on the radio. I was happy and content.

You'd have to extend that to any Ugandan. Unless you can test for homosexuality somehow. Science has all the answers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginal_photoplethysmograph There's of course a male version as well. Thank you Stephen Fry and QI for highlighting this important information. Come on man, I leave everything set up for you to make a facile gaydar joke and you come up with... wtf is that, seriously. I just lost 1d6 SAN. Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2seBEcJoPA and welcome to the internet. Enjoy your stay The sad part is that i wouldn't be surprised if the Ugandian authorities have the very same devices for the wrong reasons

You'd have to extend that to any Ugandan. Unless you can test for homosexuality somehow. Science has all the answers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaginal_photoplethysmograph There's of course a male version as well. Thank you Stephen Fry and QI for highlighting this important information.

All the rest of the world needs to do is to grant political asylum for any homosexual Ugandian.

I wonder what the real problem is in Uganda, since these kinds of legislations is usually a scare-tactic by those in power to curtail the real problems in society.

Well, that was a bit confusing because my discussion was about trolls on internet message boards (or rather, private property in general), and beyond. If you're not referring to trolls on internet message boards, then you seem to be excluding a group that you implicitly include in the first part of your question. You asked me "what are your principles regarding free speech and the application of these on public and private servers?" Your intent then, was to shift the discussion onto free speech in general and what that means, as opposed to within the context of the current discussion? You did say "I will ask again" (but then asked a different question...) but my initial elaboration was that I wasn't clear when I said "I think I may be taking the definition of free speech a bit too literally (i.e. from something like the first amendment), since I don't typically see silencing or ignoring a troll to be a violation of free speech." I already answered this, when Zoraptor called me on it, in that I clarified that I was referring to the legal right to free speech, which isn't applied in a private space. In that sense, I don't see banning a troll as a violation of anyone's right to free speech. The troll can still go and be a troll without fear of government persecution. He just can't do it on someone's private property anymore. You're right that my original statement was wrong. I thought, though, that that was cleared up when Zoraptor pointed it out and I recanted the original statement. Fair enough. I simply wondered because i have no idea on what your stance is on, well, anything. With a firm understanding on where you are coming from, in this case on the applications of free speech, i can at least form a counter-point. But you have this habit of answering questions with questions so the whole argument becomes a long "-__________-" to read. A word of advice though, assuming intent without clarification will bite you in the long run.

I think this comes back to what is a troll, because if it is someone that seeks to undermine and disrupt discussion and seek only to anger and frustrate discussion participants, couldn't I conclude that you and I both agree that trolls are not productive nor conducive to free speech? Trolls on internet message boards is simply as subset of the discussion here. Within the context of the study, I'd argue that most trolls perform their actions on places that would be considered private property. In this case, my assumption is that Nonek refers to the use of free speech in ALL applications (including internet message-boards and other places that are private property), not specifically the places where a right to free speech is more explicitly protected. I specifically said that internet message board-trolls wasn't point of my question. Oh well.

Has Oby taken over mkreku's account?

I will ask again: What are your principles regarding free speech and the application of these on public and private property? And what is the end purpose? Stability? Order? Truth? Liberty? It's quite simple. For example, my principle is freedom of expression as much as possible and the purpose is truth and liberty. Trolls on internet message-boards is not the focus here, that's private property and a completely different matter.

How do you build any form of principle for free speech from that?

What a Hollywood ending for Teemu. *sheds man-tear*

IMO they are coming from a place like RPGCodex where "trolling" has its own definition and meme where it is both acceptable and encouraged, and they got butt hurt that outside "trolls" are seen as horrible people or according to this study psychopathic sadist. It like arguing about what is "cool", you will always upset several niche communities. RPGCodex, hah, softy noveaux trollites who can't stand the heat and need to get out of the kitchen whenever there is some real discuss!on that isn't scaled to their level. Usenet, bro, where trolls were trolls and moderation wasn't in the dictionary. Well, except in moderated groups, of course. (Yeah, some trolls are horrible people. Some people are horrible people. It's sheer inevitability) They should make me a Moderator of RPGCodex, half the members would be immediately banned and most of the other members would be on there last warning. " I'll bring order and respect to that cesspool of Internet forum social injustice" Why do you hate free speech so much? I don't hate free speech, I welcome and encourage free speech. I am opposed to speech that is synonymous with discrimination or bigotry. In the South African constitution we allow free speech but not if it infringes on the dignity of the person. Its not an unreasonable expectation That's not free speech, but rather feel good speech. You may rationalize all you want, but the cow does not turn into horse just because you put it in the stables. Please stop hating freedom, my feelings and dignity depend on it

IMO they are coming from a place like RPGCodex where "trolling" has its own definition and meme where it is both acceptable and encouraged, and they got butt hurt that outside "trolls" are seen as horrible people or according to this study psychopathic sadist. It like arguing about what is "cool", you will always upset several niche communities. RPGCodex, hah, softy noveaux trollites who can't stand the heat and need to get out of the kitchen whenever there is some real discuss!on that isn't scaled to their level. Usenet, bro, where trolls were trolls and moderation wasn't in the dictionary. Well, except in moderated groups, of course. (Yeah, some trolls are horrible people. Some people are horrible people. It's sheer inevitability) They should make me a Moderator of RPGCodex, half the members would be immediately banned and most of the other members would be on there last warning. " I'll bring order and respect to that cesspool of Internet forum social injustice" Why do you hate free speech so much?

That's because they put the trolling threads into their 'Retardo-land' sub-forum.

That's not blasphemous, that's the ten commandments.

The avarage RPGCodex troll is so edgy that they are practically round.

Of course not, they have the same talent as Beethoven. That was the comparison.