Meshugger

I dunno about Sweden, but in Finland free speech is less compared to the US. We have different hate speech laws against people of different religions, blasphemy and so on. This is ofcourse extended to the arts as well. But thankfully foreign radio and TV, and nowadays the internet makes a perfect platform to express your opinion.

Their interest is in protecting their property, which is something the government has a duty to assist them with. And contrary to what was said in this thread, private entities can't shut down websites, the Justice Department would be able to do it (subject to judicial review) or a court order would have to be obtained. As far as You Tube, that situation has been resolved, there's no chance they'd get shut down. Read the bill again, which other organization or individual would have their property rights enforced like MPAA and RIAA? none. Which is why this bill should be pointed at, laughed at, and be burned up.

I think that we also have to make a difference between a stand-alone-forum and a forum for a company that is selling a product. Mkreku, can you say "kuk, pissfitta, b

The law as it is already enforces against simple "warezing" or theft. However, the fines are ridicolous, unreasonable and lack any scientific base. Since the accuser can not prove a lost sale, and the defendant got no monitary gain from it, the conclusion is a standard fine that is based on his or her income.

Sorry, but it isn't it a bit hyperbolic to equate protecting basic property rights with totalitarianism? The interests of the MPAA, RIAA or any other similar interest group is not as simple as protecting basic property rights. It is about corporative dominance, where the federal government have to act on the behalf of private interest groups, which goes against everything about being equal in front of the law. Even the Bush administration understood that and vetoed the previous bill.

As soon as the public has accepted that sites can be shut down for little or no reason, there will be groups that will try to get rid of sites that break obcenity laws. Then they will come after the racists and extremists. And later [insert any form of non-conformitist group]. Interest groups wishes to have the power to remove what they find irritating, embarressing or immoral from the internet. Companies wishes to control their own financial interests on the internet, and the states wishes to control the very flow of information itself. These groups will sooner or later coalesce and agree upon a common framework.

I still buy music. I buy music that has recently been released by bands that still exist. That doesn't mean anything at all. Because you do something legally most of the time does not excuse doing it illegally some of the time. Which doesn't have anything to do with the topic either. It is about giving authority to shut down sites on dubious claims. Piracy in itself is another matter.

I think that laws like these are inheritly corrupted. Expect many shaky "take downs" of sites that have nothing to with piracy in the future.

We control the internet now. Meh.

Great trailer for once. The voiceacting seems to have improved a bit as well. However, can the player select polish voiceovers in the vanilla version this time? I loved playing the game in polish with english subtitles, it added a wonderful flair to the overall atmosphere.

I just watched all of his videos. It's like Yahtzee without the insults. Highly recommended. Wouldn't Yahtzee without insults be terrible? Not really. He does bring good points between every insult here and there. As for metroid, sheesh, how the mighty have fallen. That didn't just sound bad, it sounded atrocious.

Pictures of naked chicks with big jugs is never tawdry or adolescent. They're awesome.

Azdeus: Thanks, i need to ponder upon it for a while though.

Oooh, i am scared. Really scared. Five percent voted for a bunch of national romantics? Sounds like any national-[insert some political ideology here]-party anywhere in the world. Damn you media for drumming the beat of a party of Belzeebubs and Azraels awakening in Sweden. Yeah, you might want to read their manifesto, listen to their speeches and look into the background of the politicians involved aswell. They're not only national romantics but are also racist islamofobes and leaders/politicians in the party have ties to Nationalsocialist parties. Edit; Also, sorry for missing your post, but I was a bit distracted back then. Ah, didn't know that. However, how tightly knitted are these connections? I mean, didn't the Left party have connections to some hardcore communists? Didn't the Social Democrats support eugenics until the seventies? In my these examples, it was an illustration of some rotten apples in the party and ideas that have outlived the party. How is it different with SD? Personally, i do not think that we will say any anti-democratic movement with brownshirts and mosque-burning happening any time soon. I think that the current swedish parties went on a one-way street with multiculturalism and refused to listen to any form of dissident voice. No party in Sweden seemed to be pro-swedish, or distinctively socially conservative, which created a vacuum that SD grabbed.

Since none of you swedes bothered to answer about the Sverigedemokraterna, i had to wiki it up myself: Oooh, i am scared. Really scared. Five percent voted for a bunch of national romantics? Sounds like any national-[insert some political ideology here]-party anywhere in the world. Damn you media for drumming the beat of a party of Belzeebubs and Azraels awakening in Sweden.

If there aren't, i am going to be sorely dissapointed. The Witcher is one of the few games that haven't been repressed by the feminazi gender studies division.

LadyCrimson and Bokishi: Sorry to hear about that, my condolences. And the swedes out here on this board: What is so special about these SverigeDemokraterna? Do they want to abolish healthcare? Kill the eldery? Support organized crime? Ressurect Satan and embrace total decadence? Sounds like something really horrible has happened there.

That's it. I am downloading it.

1) No, a nation state cannot survive without without a dominating language and/or culture. When friction between the different peoples becomes high enough, it will fracture into smaller regions without fail. Yugoslavia is a great example. 2) The lesser cultures will, and must be assimilated into the majority culture. A group that refuses to adapt will become outcasts, like the jews or gypsies. I have to say that jews have integrated quite well compared to gypsies, but that's a whole other story.

So either one culture becomes engulfed by the other, or the nation-state seizes to exist? Meh, you all agree with me, how boring. Paging Numbersman and LoF for some action.

Culture is usually represented by language, rule of law and the arts. It is also has certain social taboos and expectations. But it is also an organic process, changed through time by its participants. So here is what i am pondering about: 1) Can a single nation-state survive in the long with no dominant culture? This would mean no official or dominant language(s), different courts for persons of different culture and little to social standard between you and your neighbour. 2) If there is a dominant culture in a state or area, how would the less cultures thrive and survive in order not to erode through the process of time? By these definitions, it is not ordering exotic food, nor is it exotic elements in language or art. Those are just flavours added and succombed to the already dominant culture, which isn't really multi-cultural. So what is really a true multi-cultural society?

OK, I see this quote misinterpreted at least a couple of times in this thread. Obviously he doesn't literally want a government that governs least, since that would be anarchy. What he means is he wants a government that uses the least possible amount of coercion to still achieve the functions that the government properly has, such as provide for common security and rule of law. I understand the point or the original idea behind. What i meant was that it can be a slippery slope since it can be quite difficult to define things as common security. Maybe i am just thinking too much into it.

For example: I, for one, do not agree with Thomas Paine's argument about a goverment that governs the least, governs the best. Why? Because how can such a government protect the rights of the individual citizen against the majority when it would most likely lack in legal enforcement and in terms of resources?

Anyone who understands what the mutt is really saying. A parrot is someone repeating stuff without reflecting upon it. How "two tour vet" or reading foreign papers would have any relevance to this is beyond me. I would probably care about the second part of the sentence if I didn't realize I was replying to a guy who'll **** his pants if I folded a piece of paper the wrong way. You seem very agitated by his character, i suggest that you calm down for a moment. Even if you think that the ideas of laissez-faire economics, minimalist government or the ideas of Von Mises and Hayek are silly and lack any ground of reality, i see no point than trying to heckle, even if it feels like that you are heckled upon. How about discredit their ideas with a sound argument? Like why the Thomas Paine-quote is untrue/unsound or simply bad?

Personally, i found that goverment should not wander into the area of social engineering. For example highering or lowering taxes depending on buying you first house or apartment, having children and so on. Neither should goverment enforce a certain kind of living: banning the usage of certain substances like drugs and so on. It is simply not the governments role to steer what choices in life should be rewarding for the individual.