She received a lot of comments on this post (AKB, if it was orange she was making millions): also s

She received a lot of comments on this post (AKB, if it was orange she was making millions): also sympathetic, even opposed. Racism and hatred drained through this post like a pimple pus. From all over the blogosphere were angry at her Trakbkim. elarmariodelatele She tried to soften the matter, but it really was not serious. Then the angry bloggers go to step two: After Aviad Mgriifs elarmariodelatele removed it from the system, started writing other apparatuses require operators to remove Zerubavela, and as long as this does not happen, they do not agree to appear there.
Caa"s, elarmariodelatele in a detailed post, and also trying to play down at the same time protect the freedom of expression. Meaningless to me. Could not understand her reasons, other than "It's terrible to me so you should not say it." My opinion is allowed. Was not for nothing Freedom of expression in the United States also have members of the KKK, and neo-Nazis. This I do not like what they say, do not say allowed to shut their mouths. And if someone does not understand why, I would love to explain. elarmariodelatele
Legislation elarmariodelatele that limits freedom of expression means: citizens of the country give the executive branch - is the government - mandated to arrest and court accusing people because of what they say. But the government is very bad at deciding what is allowed to say and what not, which is why there is a parliament which controls it. If the Parliament gives the government the authority to decide what not to say, the government immediately interpret it in its favor - that she always does. You can not maintain a democracy, if anyone elarmariodelatele who criticizes the government arrested by the police - even if the court releases it at the end (after the extension elarmariodelatele of detention, and procedures, and interest, and attorney fees). Freedom of expression is a radical procedure that downplay its use as much as possible.
I agree with her, if you have the right to say things others have the right to denounce them. I denounce the Zerubavela. Who she was serious, dangerous, racist without end, and expose the weaknesses of the education system in the country and the ugly dark side of society, there are in some public space - not only Zerubavela. I call on all those who oppose her write it and distribute to anyone who wants to listen. In contrast, silencing, as an ultimatum to operators aggregators, does not serve anything. Are these views will disappear if no one hears about them? If you bury it beneath the surface, be better off? I think we should do the opposite.
Apparatuses, such as Webster and his sons, or Griifs, or Israloonti, aims to distribute elarmariodelatele content to the public. Censoring content for an opinion contrary to that goal. If there Aggregator operator that wants to censor, would they please post on the main page: "This is the last content aggregator elarmariodelatele test my morals." And maybe you should start reading each post published through, that the censor - the work never ends. This post was posted in state I, what is happening online, from pessimistic. You can go directly to this post with a direct link.
Operators demand aggregators, as I said explicitly several times, I had to remove their apparatuses. Do not remove it. Indeed, a difference of only one letter, but it seems to me that the meaning is quite clear. Me - that is, my blog, and mine alone. This "little" half shekel demagoguery to claim that there is some kind of ultimatum.
Clearly written several times how I feel about legislation that restricts freedom of expression. I also wrote Why give racists what it is not a violation elarmariodelatele of freedom of expression, but strengthening. KKK to have freedom of expression laws of the United States, and yet, I do not see their articles distributed in respectable, but only as pamphlets and what is called "hate sites." This is precisely what I'm talking elarmariodelatele about.
Caa"s (1): My problem with this position is that there is no one who can decide whether someone is racist or not, or if it is racist enough to deny freedom of speech. Means anyone can decide for himself, but for the public .
I mean, who has not removed the Zerubavela, should remove you (and anyone who adopts elarmariodelatele this proposal). Approach adopted by the press: he has to decide if he prefers you or Zerubavela. It's not fair to me, rather than serving the public wants to read blogs; Because I was happy to calls encountering elarmariodelatele the post of Zerubavela will encounter later also in your posts which condemn elarmariodelatele it.
By the way, Lance, morality is just "decide for the public." Yes, a big responsibility, but I think it is important, and I am firmly opposed to the concept maintaining personal ethics elarmariodelatele or moral relativism. Besides, there are settings pretty obvious racism, elarmariodelatele and seem to have enough It is clear that support for the entire sterilization or other opinions expressed in the above post fall under these definitions.
I do not see the request for removal attempt conviction. Email the operator, or even reasoned reader post operators elarmariodelatele remove Zerubavela, persuasion attempt. This requirement does not attempt removal of persuasion, because - as I said - it creates a balance of "me or is the" place "is racist and in favor of all you should download it." I think that the demand for removal elarmariodelatele weakens your argument against it.
I sense that whoever started the dance of swords does not understand how freedom of expression is the most important thing in a democracy. All statements on the "defensive democracy" are simply fire the cannon on the mouse, really not the point. I have not read the posts of Zorblh before, but all the buzz stirred Send me read it carefully, unfortunately.
Well, we disagree. Email the operator was. There was also an attempt conviction, for those who wanted it. The trigger was the removal request. Then he would attempt to persuade an expanded extended principle, which I have outlined it, the proper way to fight racism eyes. You insist on using the term censorship here - terrific. I have no problem with the concept. elarmariodelatele There is censorship everywhere and in everything, elarmariodelatele even if you do not call it censorship and is not transparent. But I'm talking about censorship is internal social censorship, indicated by the norms and values of society. As I said in my legislation that limits freedom of expression in a democratic elarmariodelatele state indicates a failure in the eyes of the education and values. Churchill Sanhedrin