Reddit Bans Subreddit Dedicated To Finding Navy Yard Shooters 159
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Reddit became a gathering place for amateur sleuthing in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing earlier this year, fueling what some reports called 'online witch hunts' that resulted in some people being falsely identified as the bomber. Now Andrea Peterson reports at the Washington Post that a section on the popular online community for finding the Navy Yard shooters has been banned. 'We banned it because it violated site rules by encouraging the posting of personal information,' says Erik Martin from reddit. The shooting at the Washington Navy Yard on Monday morning left at least 12, including a gunman dead. But police say there may be another suspect at large, and they 'have reason to believe' this individual was involved in shootings."
Re: (Score:1)
If your aim was really to prevent partisan bickering, I would like to think you'd have left "anti-gun nuts" out of it entirely and presented a neutral stance instead. As it stands, you're just making a pre-emptive strike.
Actually, if you drop "anti-gun" and change "agenda" to "agendas", this sounds like a downright reasonable post. Perhaps keep that in mind next time?
Re: (Score:2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Why do you need automatic weapons to defend yourself, or hand guns. Whats wrong with just a
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly when you need a concealable weapon, otherwise you're the first target.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
This is getting tedious. America has had more guns than people since Euros first stepped foot on it 500 years ago. If guns haven't turned the US into a lawless Mad Max apocalyptic wasteland by now, chances are it isn't going to anytime soon.
And WTF does it even mean to "run and hide" under gun rights? This is histrionic babble.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't print ammunition
Re: (Score:3)
Not only can you print ammunition, but making bullets in a mold is beyond trivial.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...and where the police don't walk around all day expecting to be shot dead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
maybe instead of fellatio over the imagined protection of a gun you get your fuckign society in order and create an enviroment where poeple dont feel the need to shoot or be criminals int he first place?
Sadly, we can't create that country by outlawing guns.
Fuck you and your guns and your short sighted bullshit.
You're an anonymous coward. Emphasis on coward. You'd have to stand on a stool to even fail at penetration. But go ahead, try and fuck some gun owners, let us know how that works out for you.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (Score:5, Insightful)
And are safer in general with less crime in general?
You might want to look at those crime stats again. The USA has a fuckload of homicides compared to Western Europe, especially by gun, but violent crime overall is not bad [msn.co.nz]. And that's a minor miracle considering our public policy regarding the urban poor. So yes, in the US if you are involved with gang warfare, you stand a larger chance of being murdered than in Europe. On the other hand, if you are just walking down the street, you are a lot more likely to get mugged in Europe. So there you go.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not what the article actually says. What it says is that the murder rate in the USA is much higher in general (it makes no mention of gang warfare), but that the mugging rate is lower than in Europe. Perhaps because people get shot instead of mugged instead?
Also, although it's a minor issue, I take umbrage with your phrasing of the first statement. It can be read to imply that violent crime in the USA is somehow doing better than normal. In fact violent crime rates have fallen everywhere in lockstep
Re: (Score:2)
So essentially what we have is that violent crime fell everywhere, including the USA, but in America muggings are generally replaced with shootings.
People, broadly, do not get shot for robbery. I may have been exaggerating for effect, but roughly 1/3 of homicides are motivated by an argument of some kind. 1/5 come while committing a felony. The point is, you are unlikely to get shot in the US just walking down the street.
Re: (Score:2)
I think gun advocates are barking up the wrong tree with the whole "overthrow the government" angle. I agree that is a silly case to make when you have rifles and they have tanks.
That said, you don't have dictatorships in Europe??? What??? I'll give you a pass on Belarus, but Spain wasn't a democracy until pretty recently. Still, it doesn't fit the narrative of a gunless population overrun by a dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, dude I think you are argumentatively agreeing with me...
Re: (Score:2)
This case is really the more relevant one to the 2nd amendment (which was drafted when the possibility of Britain deciding to reconquer the US was a very real concern.)
The problem is that the concept was abandoned before the 1700s ran out. They returned to the concept of a standing army after the militia idea proved ineffective.
Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (Score:5, Funny)
What's wrong with a massacre? You make it sound like nipples were shown during the killings.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3)
The difference compared to the US is that in Switzerland, all those guns are kept at home by people who have been trained and serve(d) in the military. As in, they have been through a selection process to weed out the unstable idiots who should not have guns, because you do not want unstable idiots to have firearms period, whether in the military or not.
In the US, any Billy Joe Bob Gun-nut can go out and buy an assault rifle with little more than a basic background check. There is no training requirement an
Re: (Score:2)
The difference compared to the US is that in Switzerland, all those guns are kept at home by people who have been trained and serve(d) in the military
The guy (dead now) who shot up the Navy Yard had previously been in the military. And all he needed was a simple shotgun. The sort of thing that VP Biden says is exactly what people should own for hunting and self defense. He used that simple shotgun to shoot a military guard and gain access to that guard's handgun. He came across the rifle inside the Yard, said the Washington Post.
And no, just about nobody can buy an assault rifle. Do you mean a semi-auto rifle no different than every rancher uses to k
Re: (Score:2)
The guy (dead now) who shot up the Navy Yard had previously been in the military. And all he needed was a simple shotgun. The sort of thing that VP Biden says is exactly what people should own for hunting and self defense. He used that simple shotgun to shoot a military guard and gain access to that guard's handgun. He came across the rifle inside the Yard, said the Washington Post.
The US's problem (if you accept it as a problem, which I do, but which you probably don't, but which I don't really want to argue about) is that it is flooded with guns of all sorts, compared to your average EU country.
Today's killer started out with a shotgun, shot a security guard, and took his semi-automatic handgun. Let's compare with the UK- shotguns are fairly readily available here, but not much else is. You can shoot as many policemen or security guards as you like with your shotgun, but you aren't
Re: (Score:2)
security guards and beat policemen do not carry guns
Are you saying that the military guards who protect the entrances to the UK's military headquarters buildings are unarmed? Really?
Re:Please Leave the Gun Rights Debate Out Of This (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To further refine that, it's a lack of mental healthcare PLUS the easy availability of guns that is the problem. One without the other would not really be a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
One without the other would not really be a problem.
Yep, because crazies can't kill people without a gun.
Re: (Score:2)
If you think that the perpetrator of the massacre in Washington could have killed 12 people with a box knife and a claw hammer, you are crazy.
The fact he killed 12 people is directly attributable to him managing to gain access to guns- one shotgun under his own steam, and two more weapons available at the scene. Him being crazy on its own would not have caused that massacre.
Same can be said of any school shooting or similar that you'd care to mention.
Re: (Score:2)
Same can be said of any school shooting or similar that you'd care to mention.
Okay... Let's see.
"Boston bombing."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm guessing you haven't dealt much with folks suffering from severe mental illness. I have. Yeah, they ought not have guns. But frankly whether they have guns or not is irrelevant to the fact that if you let your guard down they are going to kill you because you are an imagined threat/their ghost told them to/they don't know why/they enjoy killing and are fine with it. They could kill you with their bare hands, or a spoon. Frankly you should need a special OSHA permit to deal with crazy people. Given
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of mental health care is the problem.
If that was the case, then people with even severe mental illnesses wouldn't be at much greater statistical risk (based on actual cases) of being assaulted and/or killed by everyday "sane" individuals than vice-versa, and the vast majority of violent gang members, rapists, etc. wouldn't similarly be lacking an identifiable mental illness.
While the majority of people in our prisons do have either a psychiatric illness or serious learning disability, they primarily comprise the ranks of people committing non-
Re: (Score:1)
Compared to what? Japan where more people are murdered by their own hand? Syria? North Korea? Mexico?
Re: (Score:2)
with today's news the situation gets even funnier for the Obama / Feinstein talking points of going to anti-"assualt rifle" and federal background checks... perp used a shotgun (just like Joe Biden reccommended!) and moreover had fed background check for his contractor job (passed even with all his previous bad behaviour).
Someone play Barack and the bitch (who built her millions on exporting assualt weapons while serving on committeee that authorized the same) the sad trombone
Pointless (Score:3, Funny)
Since 4chan will just get it wrong for them.
I'm ready to go (Score:5, Funny)
Just tell me who to beat senseless with mob justice and I'm there
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, look at that. He can't even spell "Alan" correctly - obviously a sleeper.
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't narrow it down much among Slashdot readers.
Because the whole Boston Bombing effort... (Score:2, Insightful)
...went really well for Reddit. They probably banned it just for the potential deluge of bad publicity.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Went really well for the NSA too. /s
Another one they missed. No doubt it will be time to beg congress for more money to redouble their effort.
I'm sure we will all feel safer then.
Re: (Score:2)
Hiding the truth! (Score:4, Funny)
And right after they'd managed to finger Lee Harvey Oswald.
Coincidence? Follow the money, sheeple!
Brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
As I recall and TFS states these Sherlocks managed to wrongly identify at least one person in the Boston bombings and correctly identify none, so good riddance to any further efforts in that direction.
Missed the sarcasm (Score:4, Insightful)
Except the purpose of this banned subreddit wasn't actually to find the shooter. It was satirical. All the posters were making fun of how bad they fucked things up during the Boston bombings.
And you know that:
1. Some posters will miss the /sarcasm tag, take it seriously and post personal information of real life people. /sarcasm tag and flog stories about how Reddit is screwing the lives of innocent people. Again.
2. Some posters will take the opportunity to post personal information of their ex's, their enemies, their bosses...
3. Some media company will miss the
Reddit did the right thing by shutting it down.
Re: (Score:1)
Reddit did the right thing by shutting it down.
You mean, after the epic clusterfuck that was the boston bomber coverage on Reddit destroying the lives of a handful of people, yes... then they did the right thing. Of course, those people still hiding under the covers in their house with PTSD and social anxiety from being unable to walk in public without being accused of being "the bomber that got away" are still waiting for their apologies... so you know, "right thing" is a bit subjective.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree, people who mistake humour for a call to vigilantism and then join in need to take personal responsibility for their stupidity. In some ways it's better that we find out who they are and limit the harm they can do, rather than trying to ban the humour. Especially if they are a TV news channel rather than an individual.
We have gone down this slippery slope in the UK already. Someone tweeted about blowing up an airport if his flight was cancelled, clearly a joke to any reasonable person. He was con
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree, people who mistake humour for a call to vigilantism and then join in need to take personal responsibility for their stupidity. In some ways it's better that we find out who they are and limit the harm they can do, rather than trying to ban the humour. Especially if they are a TV news channel rather than an individual.
I disagree with your disagreement in this case. You can take the idiots to task for being clueless to sarcasm and raining vigilante justice on the wrong people, for not taking personal responsibility, etc but this ignores two things:
1) you can't un-ruin any lives they've harmed. One idiot missing the /sarcasm tag spawns more idiots who miss the /sarcasm tag and are convinced this ID'd person "got away with it"
2) especially online, it can be difficult to ID the actual people who are doing harm to innocent pe
Re: (Score:2)
If you have to watch what you say because idiots might get the wrong idea it has a chilling effect on free speech and on satire, both of which are vital for democracy.
Your analogy of stepping out into the road is flawed because even if you have right of way the road is a shared space and the rules are designed to work when both parties are paying attention. If we wanted to put all the responsibility on drivers we could, but they would then have to drive at 5 kph in urban areas.
Other "news" outlets also got it wrong (Score:1)
At least, the justice is not as swift any more (Score:1)
Having been on the receiving end of one such "investigation" [antiwar.com], I can say, I'm glad, the justice is not as swift these days.
But you can't ban this — not without abolishing the First Amendment...
Re: (Score:1)
Give them time. Soon it will join the 4th in applying only to you in your home... with the door closed... and the curtains drawn... in your basement.. by yourself... sometimes.
Re:At least, the justice is not as swift any more (Score:5, Informative)
Sure they can. Reddit can allow/disallow whatever they want - the First Amendment covers rights of free speech against the government only.
Re:At least, the justice is not as swift any more (Score:5, Informative)
For values of "you" which equal the Federal government, a State government, a municipality, or some other government actor.
First amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..."
Fourteenth amendment: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
Held to bring the States within the umbrella of the first amendment in Gitlow v. New York.
However, Reddit is not a government actor. More to the point, Reddit has absolute editorial discretion under the Communications Decency Act -- so that even case law concerning speech in company towns and shopping centers cannot be used by analogy to create any obligation for the site to permit it.
Reddit could ban it, your local paper could ban it, and your ad-supported or paid email service could ban it. They simply don't have the power to throw you in jail or confiscate your money if you violate the ban.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the part about "you" meaning the government was created by liberals trying to prove that "the people" really means state governments or everyone collectively as a group but not any individual person.
I really wish they would stop doing that and admit that "the people" means every single one of us individually.
Origins and Techniques of Monarch Mind Control (Score:1, Informative)
http://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/origins-and-techniques-of-monarch-mind-control/ [vigilantcitizen.com]
Monarch Programming is a method of mind control used by numerous organizations for covert purposes. It is a continuation of project MK-ULTRA, a mind-control program developed by the CIA, and tested on the military and civilians. The methods are astonishingly sadistic (its entire purpose is to traumatize the victim) and the expected results are horrifying: [...]
Re: (Score:2)
http://vigilantcitizen.com/hidden-knowledge/origins-and-techniques-of-monarch-mind-control/ [vigilantcitizen.com]
Monarch Programming is a method of mind control used by numerous organizations for covert purposes. It is a continuation of project MK-ULTRA, a mind-control program developed by the CIA, and tested on the military and civilians. The methods are astonishingly sadistic (its entire purpose is to traumatize the victim) and the expected results are horrifying: [...]
Do not touch your dial.
We control the horizontal.
We control the vertical.
And you, dear AC, should control you alcohol and other drug intake. Hope you start feeling better soon.
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe this please seek medical help for your mental condition. I am serious. I knew one person who went from dapper young stud to paranoid nut bag after a stint in jail (lesson in life, don't hit a white man in the rural south if the color of your skin is significantly darker than his, even if he provokes you). Everywhere he looked he saw conspiracy, chemtrails, mind control, new world order, etc. He lost it, even smashed a brand new laptop he spent 1200 on after only two weeks when he thought the
How is this any different? (Score:1)
Paul Wagner
Fox5Wagner
via Twitter about 1h ago"
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is they are the police. That is their job, they are professionals, they have training, and they are accountable.
Reddit users? None of those apply.
Re: (Score:1)
FOX News, nor Twitter apply either... They are obviously making an open release to the public, for any pertinent information. Or did I misunderstand the Make and Model plus Licence Plate registration info? They are just telling us that THEY are looking, right?
Re: (Score:2)
The police issued the statement to the press that they were looking for a black Nissan with that license plate. Fox News, a media outlet, published the statement. People with information on this Nissan should contact the police, not Reddit.
Re: (Score:1)
You could have said that first.
Seems kind of silly to me that *any* method of public dissemination, which could share the EXACT SAME INFORMATION, would be censored. I wish them luck.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you talking about? Reddit is not publishing official police statements. They're trying to do their own investigation. Last time this happened it was a spectacular failure that implicated two innocent people. Reddit's management clearly does not want that happening again.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is they are the police. That is their job, they are professionals, they have training, and they are accountable.
It's their job, professionalism varies widely, the training is literally community college, and HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
doesn't fit the stereotype and sound bites (Score:1)
preliminary research indicate the shooter was registered Democrat, Obama supporter, muslim and gay. Obama's teleprompter is going to drill a hole in the ground with the spin job.
Re: (Score:2)
oh my, now it turned out perp didn't even use an AR-15, instead he used a shotgun just like Joe Biden said every American should use for home defense.
passed federal background check for his contractor job too, maybe those wouldn't make a dent in gun crime?
Leave it to the professionals (Score:1)
The NSA most likely has more than enough information to secretly try and convict this person. Notice to arm chair vigilantes, the government is already more than likely to have all these peoples internet search histories, all their acquaintances and all their phone calls. And that presumes that normal everyday monitoring hadn't already flagged them for extra scrutinity!
Rest assured citizen, you are in good hands! Just don't band together informally, remember, that's what the terrerists do!
Re: (Score:2)
The NSA most likely has more than enough information to secretly try and convict this person
NSA has enough information to secretly try and convict EVERY American.
The hivemind is not suited for crime detection (Score:3)
Witch hunts are bad enough when it is just a corporation behaving badly. Thread people talk about passing out pitch forks and so forth and so on. There definitely is a witch hunt mentality sometimes on reddit. And normally it is mostly harmless. Dumb, but harmless. Social media is good for a lot of things, but crime solving is not one of these things.
Real media is threatened by social media. So anything that is bad in social media, real media will highlight hard. They'll try everything they can to discourage people from using social media and outright close it down if they can. So it is better that social media witch hunts get shut down prematurely, before someone determines themselves to be a vigilante or otherwise act dumb out in public.
To conclude social media should be used for it strengths such as bringing attention to intelligent conversations, humor, and different points of view. This is refreshing compared to main stream media which every channel is corrupted by political agendas so there is no such thing as different points of view that are correct. Social media has weaknesses, and maybe we should really act to make sure these weaknesses don't go out of control.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd say that social media is tailor made for witch hunts as the whole point of witch hunts is to incorrectly convict and execute somebody.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd go so far as to say one of the most entertaining parts about the site is learning to manipulate the general opinion on a topic. I think one can learn a lot about how groups of people think, and learn some caution about jumping to conclusions, by trying it. In theory at least I think it's made me a lot less prone to come down for or against anything given how easy everyone, including myself, can be manipulated. It's one thing to know it intellectually, another to really see it in action on a fairy easily replicated way.
Funny, that's what I use /. for...
This isn't even news (Score:2)
All that happens on such a subreddit is wild speculation. Last time they did it, innocent people wrongly identified got harrassed IRL. They're not detectives. Just send any real tips direct to the FBI.
Re: (Score:1)
As long as it on your property or public property. If you start talking crap about the occupation of palestine at Starbucks, they tell you to get out.
Re:Freedom of speech... (Score:5, Informative)
In America, you have freedom of speech... but it's the 18th-century definition of "speech", which is more accurately described by today's use of the word "expression", because you have the freedom to claim any idea you want, rather than being required to pretend you like whatever the government likes. Speaking of government, that's the only entity offering you that freedom. The government promises you free expression, but others are equally free to express displeasure at your expression, to the extent of their other rights. Businesses can refuse to serve you, newspapers can reject your letters to the editor, and other people can even burn you in effigy... because those are all protected speech/expression as well.
Of course, in the past 237 years, people have abused that freedom of expression to curtail others' rights. The Supreme Court has determined that the right to free expression is not as important as someone else's right to life, and it doesn't override rule of law, either. Speech that incites "imminent lawless action" is not protected, even from the government.
Americans have the freedom of expression. You can post your ideas on a billboard and display them (in a lawful manner), and you are completely safe from government prosecution and persecution for holding those views. You are not safe, however, from the consequences of pissing people off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
well said
it is unfortunate so many people out there think freedom means "i can do whatever the hell i want without consequence" like an immature child
and don't understand what freedom really is: something that goes hand in hand with responsibility, as any true adult understands
please note:
where there is no responsibility, there is no freedom
if you don't understand or agree with that statement, you don't even know what freedom really is
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Just what DO you think freedom means? Do you think freedom means "I can do whatever the hell I want, right up until the point the state decides what I'm doing is irresponsible and sends goons to beat the shit out of me, throw me in a cage, and/or kill me?" Because that's an awfully funny definition of "freedom"; it's rather similar to "despotism".
Re:Freedom of speech... (Score:5, Insightful)
more like "your freedom to swing your fists ends at my nose"
i can't play my music at 3 am, i impinge on my neighbor's right to sleep
i can't speed 120 mph on the highway, i impinge on other driver's right to live
i can't smoke in the office, i impinge on my fellow worker's right to breathe
and when the boss/ police/ landlord comes by and complains, there will be some, like yourself, who in their immaturity, will see it as the state taking away their rights, when the only person infringing on other people's rights is you
Re:Freedom of speech... (Score:5, Interesting)
I like the definition I heard a Black man on TV use once a few years ago.
"Freedom does not mean doing what you can get away with, doing what you please. It means, instead, having the opportunity to do what you ought to do--for family and for community and for humanity as a whole."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
when the consequence hurts me as well, i have a right to have a say in that behavior
because i love freedom crushing authority?
no, because i love MY freedom
and i don't want my freedom oppressed by that from which a lot of freedom oppression in this world actually comes from: not the stereotypical government goon, but from my fellow citizen who is an irresponsible moron
Re: (Score:2)
when the consequence hurts me as well
In a society with free speech, you get a say even when that behavior is none of your business.
Re: (Score:2)
that's a very interesting example
it sounds like a premise for a book or movie or tv show
i bet it would be quite successful
Re: (Score:2)
maybe first you cook meth
If meth cooking were legal, none of the rest would follow.
Re: (Score:2)
The point still stands
As does my point. Society of the US is unable to accept the freedom of allowing people to use harmful recreational drugs on themselves. This loss of freedom leads to other harms as your morality play demonstrates.
Re: (Score:2)
People had the freedom to choose. Losing their freedom was a consequence of their choice.
But it didn't have to be a consequence.
Going back to my first point, people continue to make more wrong choices instead of actually facing the consequences or doing something to reverse the wrong doing.
Or make wrong doing not wrong doing. There's a considerable parsimony of power to making something not illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
where there is no responsibility, there is no freedom
if you don't understand or agree with that statement, you don't even know what freedom really is
All right, I'm intrigued. To me, freedom in the legal sense is about immunity from consequences, i.e. that you can do something without being punished. Freedom is different from legal rights in that it's the default -- if nobody threatens you with violence, you are free. If the government grants you (or recognises your right to) freedom of speech , you can say anything without being persecuted by the government. The fact that others can ostrichise you or condemn you for the speech is orthogonal to the quest
Re: (Score:2)
in a society where people always do whatever the hell they want with no regard for responsibility, you get absolute authoritarianism, because somebody has to make the assholes pay
in a society where people always acts responsibly, you have the utopian libertarian ideal society of 100% freedom
of course, neither extreme actually happens, but the point is, the more people behave responsibly, the more true freedom everyone has, and the less people beahve responsibly, the more people have to depend upon the state
Re: (Score:3)
They have no power to insert things into the constitution that weren't there before...
...but the SCOTUS does have the power (and the duty) to interpret the law according to the circumstances at hand, reconciling the traditional written law with the current societal views. Ideally, the judicial branch is what determines whether something that is law is also right.
That "fire in a crowded theater" case? Used to arrest war [protesters].
Or, from the perspective of American citizens in 1919, the accused (Schenck [wikipedia.org]) was weakening the American war effort, indirectly threatening the lives of every American. That infringes on their inherent and inalienable right to life, w
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, they are not supposed to reconcile anything "with the current societal views." That is what causes all the problems. When current societal views say that "freedom of the press" only means printing or speaking viewpoints approved by the government and the government says that believing in the FOSS ideals is no longer allowed are we still okay with SCOTUS reconciling "with current societal views" or would we prefer that SCOTUS focus solely on the original intent of the framers (or authors of more re
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, SCOTUS exists to reconcile laws with the current views. Laws are slow to change, whereas technology and morality can change overnight.
When current societal views say [bad things] are we still okay with SCOTUS...
Just stop right there. "We" are society. If current views are in favor of censoring speech, that means that Americans generally consider such censorship to be right. Since this is a democracy, ruled by the people, it is ultimately the people's opinions that matter most, even more than the original wording of the law.
There are many good reasons to reject the morality of 1
Re: (Score:2)
While you may not be physically safe you are legally and philosophically safe. That is why the US allows many modes of self-defense. People may be upset by your words but that does not give them the "right" to harm you over it.
Re: (Score:3)
Reddit has terms of service and rules that you adhere to when posting or otherwise participating in the community. They don't have an obligation to accommodate those rules to your liking.
That doesn't destroy your freedom of speech. You're free to email or use some other service which allows you to communicate that information. You can try Slashdot, if you want.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Oh, the beauty of silence... or fools (idiots) not remaining silent.
Pot, meet kettle.
A libertarian would whole-heartedly agree that the US Constitution absolutely does not require a business to accommodate anyone's needs or desires. For instance, libertarians are absolutely against such things as the EEOC penalizing employers for not hiring based on race or political viewpoints and such. Libertarians view the constitution as allowing people to assemble with other like-minded people and this inherently means