Correct, I suppose that an active enforcement of free speech could be defined as a new right, maybe that wasn't clear.
704 karma · joined October 6, 2015
Nowadays the right to free speech is enforced in a passive way, so-to-say: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech".
However the Constitution was written in a different era, when doing nothing to abridge the freedom of speech was effectively granting freedom of speech to everyone. Today on the Internet a few corporations can effectively abridge one's freedom of speech.
So, what I am asking is: do we need a stronger and active enforcement of the free speech rights? An active enforcement in which the Government mandates that all businesses must give equal voice to citizens?
Apparently that's not something new, see mfringel's comment above:
"#2 implies that, in the US, anyone who attempts to use overwhelming coercive power of any form to silence speech tends to get looked on poorly by the law."
Edit: guys, that's not Reddit, try not to downvote a civil debate.
In my opinion they have a lot to do with the First Amendment.
When a few big players can effectively and arbitrarily put someone out of business, that's quite a problem in my opinion.
When a few big players can effectively silence a voice, that's a free speech problem, in my opinion.
As our lives move from physical places to the Internet, I would like to see the same liberties maintained.
Honest question: do we need better enforcement for the First Amendment rights in the current digital era? Shop owners cannot decide who enters in their shop, should digital service providers be allowed to discriminate?
The same happens when someone is banned from Facebook and Twitter: of course there are other options, but he won't be able to reach 95% of the Internet audience.
Edit: maybe should've spoken about a "different, active enforcement" rather than "better enforcement".
It'll be cheaper and void your warranty, which has already expired.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/21/apple-rep...
Mine had exactly the same symptoms, and got a new battery for free!
Wouldn't GCC complain about a comparison which is always true?
If women in Sweden are doing the same career choices as in Saudi Arabia, as a matter of fact one can rule out the society as a factor.
Unless you want to believe that Saudi Arabia and Sweden are equally oppressive to women.
It clearly must be something biological.
A gigantic survey (I could find references if you are interested) has shown that from ultra-repressive environments (Muslim or African countries) to ultra-liberal countries (Northern Europe) the percentage of women going into CS is about the same. It actually decreases a bit in progressive countries.
This strongly supports the fact that the environment does not matter, biological differences do.
The position, shape, orientation and color of the primitives should provide a rather synthetic representation of the starting image.
As you may or may not know, on Nature Communications (and on many other journals of Nature Publishing Group) you can only publish open-access, so that's effectively a fee you have to pay to publish on Nature Communications.
You pay, you get your paper published. You don't pay it, your paper is not published.
As you see, your definition of grey literature includes one of the most prestigious journals in the physical sciences. Time to revise it! Better late than never!
> Don't come to my university.
If I do I hope that at least your colleagues will be able to see beyond their nose, and will know that what's standard in humanities may not be standard in other fields.
> Open access fees are very expensive everywhere.
Which is exactly my point. The EU announces that all papers will be free to read, so open access? Someone must pay. The price will be paid by research groups, smaller ones may not be able to sustain it.
The most prestigious journals have a publication fee. I know for sure that Nature Communications has a pretty hefty fee, more than 5000$, google it. And, trust me, publishing there has a pretty positive impact on your CV.
The same concept applies to all open-access journals, including the most prestigious ones.
You may want to revise your definition of "grey literature".
Whenever I published an article most often I got my references corrected, some grammar errors where spotted during the publishing process (I am not a native English speaker), also my articles are professionally typeset.
Maybe we work in different fields, don't assume your point of view automatically extends to every field of science.
This cost will be paid by scientists, rather than by the readers. In other words, the papers will be free to read, but won't be free to publish.
I know as a fact that smaller research groups struggle to pay current publishing fees, and as a matter of fact the EU decision will increase them, making the situation worse.
You cannot see how a peaceful splitting of a country is way different from terrorism. You cannot see that human rights do exist, whatever you like them or not, and there are courts enforcing them (ECtHR, for instance)...
Well, my friend, seems like we are living in different worlds.
Of course they do.
You didn't read my reply thoroughly.
I just said that if you believe they have no right to exist, you must also believe that they cannot have a right to make laws.
> a referendum to split the state into two also threatens the state
Threatening the state by splitting it, and threatening the state with terrorism are two completely different things.
The former is somehow encouraged by international law, through the right of self-determination of nations. The latter, on the other hand, is frowned upon very badly, as it violates at least a couple of dozen of articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Quite a big assumption you make.
If states have no right to exist, they obviously have no right of making new laws.
Here we are discussing about a law proposal, so apparently everyone believes in the right of a country to exist and to regulate citizen's life through laws.
I'm sorry.
Of course it's not so, some laws are required to face a new threat and stabilize the country.
Accounting for all deaths together is a great way of losing focus on each problem.
Drownings account for roughly as many deaths as police in the USA. Should we seek for different, specific solutions or treat all deaths as if they were the same, losing touch with the real topic?
Terrorism is a deliberate attempt to destabilize the state and must be fought differently with respect to, say, flu.
No, it's not. It exposed some structural problems of the economy which could have gone unnoticed for, say, ten or twenty years.
Italy has a very high state spending, which is not matched (as in e.g. Northern countries), by a very high level of state-provided services. The Italian state indebted itself by granting privileges in the 60s, 70s and 80s, notably in form of unsustainable pension, so that today's retired people are getting more money than they gave through taxes, creating more debt.
This gigantic, bloated ship has been kept afloat by devaluating the currency (while we could) and by a high taxation.
And, yes, the taxation level in Italy (red line) is inversely correlated to the increase/decrease of the GDP (in blue).
http://i.imgur.com/0VgdH25.png
On top of that civil justice is painfully slow and uncertain, bureaucracy is rampant, setting up a business requires tens of authorization and months.
> If you ask people on the street the real reason behind Italy's fall is the rise of China, Italy used to have a lot of small manufacturing businesses
I'm not sure about it. An embarrassing number big Italian brands has been sold abroad, so I don't think the dimensions of the business are a factor here.
Italy it's simply no longer a good place to do business. If you can go abroad, you go there. Most new activities I see in my city are restaurants or retailers goods produced elsewhere.
This plot shows the difference between the Italian GDP per capita and the Eurozone average GDP per capita. The vertical blue line marks the day the exchange rates between European currencies were fixed.
The negotiations will be done by the government.
Mr Farage will have no role in the negotiations.
Why waiting for something you have absolutely no role in?
Except for the Higgs boson, the usual picture is that matter particles are fermions and force mediators are bosons:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/St...
A false sillogism, indeed, but that's how you make headlines. And btw doesn't make the discovery any less exciting.