I'm happy to discuss law, morality, philosophy, international agreements and customs, policies, and their effects and rationalisations, and what should be done and what seems wrong.
I'm happy to discuss the *issue*, the obstacles, the solutions.
But dividing EVERYTHING into red vs blue and then lumping people into one side or the other is just some paleolithic gang rivalry and it's a waste of time when that becomes the argument.
You can't discuss morality anymore sadly - it is literally illegal. Just try to open the topics of gay marriage or affirmative action, see how fast you're out the door, with a lawsuit following.
We literally have gay marriage, and affirmative action is, I believe, another name for positive discrimination? Which is still seen as discrimination in the law, and can be challenged as unfair.
I can discuss anything I damn well like, and have done - at work, in person, online, etc. The US is, somehow, less free in that regard.
You cannot discuss an ongoing legal case, literally outside the court, to the press, including prejudicial information, before the jury has retired to give its verdict, when the jury could have observed that speech.
Do not use that as an example of limitation of free speech.
The BBC routinely mocks the highest echelons of government and itself on its own programmes, especially when there's a scandal.
And idiots teaching their dogs to salute when someone says a phrase so offensive that Slashdot lame filters it,
Re: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't discuss "politics".
I'm happy to discuss law, morality, philosophy, international agreements and customs, policies, and their effects and rationalisations, and what should be done and what seems wrong.
I'm happy to discuss the *issue*, the obstacles, the solutions.
But dividing EVERYTHING into red vs blue and then lumping people into one side or the other is just some paleolithic gang rivalry and it's a waste of time when that becomes the argument.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I live in the UK.
We literally have gay marriage, and affirmative action is, I believe, another name for positive discrimination? Which is still seen as discrimination in the law, and can be challenged as unfair.
I can discuss anything I damn well like, and have done - at work, in person, online, etc. The US is, somehow, less free in that regard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot discuss an ongoing legal case, literally outside the court, to the press, including prejudicial information, before the jury has retired to give its verdict, when the jury could have observed that speech.
Do not use that as an example of limitation of free speech.
The BBC routinely mocks the highest echelons of government and itself on its own programmes, especially when there's a scandal.
And idiots teaching their dogs to salute when someone says a phrase so offensive that Slashdot lame filters it,
Comment removed (Score:2)