Your public reputation is your most valuable asset.
So there should be laws that keep people from saying mean things about each other in public.
Especially famous people.
Nobody should be able to use a photograph of you or talk about you ("use your name or your corporation's name as click-bait") WITHOUT YOUR EXPRESS CONSENT.
Celebrities and other public figures are constantly being accused of "not caring" about things like "the environment" and or "justice" and the like.
Celebrities and other public figures are constantly being accused of totally false "crimes" that are just made up by people who are obviously jealous of them, I mean if you were super rich and famous would you ever commit any crimes? Of course not!!
These kinds of claims are LIBELOUS SLANDER AND SHOULD BE ILLEGAL.
Caring about the "right" or "wrong" things is not a crime yet.
And since it is an indisputable fact that people don't know the inner thoughts (actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea) of the people they hate, they should not be allowed to speak publicly on the matter without facing steep fines and penalties.
I mean, how can we ever have truly "free-speech" if these idiots are allowed to just say whatever the heck they want??
Question: IF somebody like; let's use Dwayne Johnson, just as an example; allegedly stole from a store. The video was leaked to the internet somehow and we know pretty reliably that Dwayne stole, would it be illegal to say: "Dwayne Johnson is a thief,"?
HAVE YOU PERSONALLY AUTHENTICATED THE OBVIOUSLY FAKE VIDEO?
You should always report alleged crimes to the police and only to the police.
You should never make public accusations.
And anonymous crime reports are no longer accepted, so be prepared to fill out some forms and face the person you're accusing, because they're required by law to know your name and home address.
Human "creativity" is (EITHER) caused by previous influences (OR) indistinguishable from random
WILL cannot be random
FREE action cannot be caused by previous influences
FREE is incompatible with WILL
Perhaps anarchy already exists and "THE COMMUNITY" is merely the highest manifestation of organized crime. – special thanks to @thoughts-in-time
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
In effect, this is somewhat true. Though, I wouldn't necessarily characterize them as "rights" in this context given that, as you pointed out, they can be taken away. "Legal privileges" would be more apropos. With that said, my arguments will always be in service to the "ideals" or rights. If we conform or concede the ideal in order to be, as I often see in response, "more practical," then there is no point to rights.
It's simply contracting with mobsters for temporary periods of survival.
SOURCE CONVO
SEARCH ROKU TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH YOUTUBE FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH LBRY.TV FOR "LOGICZOMBIE"
SEARCH ROKU TV FOR "GROKALL"
ZOMBIEBASICTRAINING
+proHUMAN +proFAMILY
Your scathing critique is requested.
MeToo is why I left Twitter. It's litterally none of my business who raped you and I like to eat while I browse social media, so it would be nice to not loose my appetite looking at the lowest quality photo of Manson while enjoying a coffee and bagel lol
Your attention is the only currency.
HIVE!D
Mine the Gap
Robert Kiyosaki is reading Jim Rickards.
The Goldman drone army won't know what hit them.
Bob also buys Lead ... Like silver.
Buddy from Denver
Now in Austin Tx
Excellent reporting.
IKR?
Been tryna call him all morning!
@arcadiaeconomics
but his numbers have changed. If you see him out there on the Web, tell him to call Bacon.
In the meme time I'm planning a trip out to See Austin so maybe I can talk with him myself.
Peace Out!
Nice.
Your attention is the only currency.
That's why you shouldn't spend it all on corporate bullshit.
Try spending some of it on your immediate family as well.
The more times the word 'should' is used, the weaker and weaker the argument gets...
(the word is a guilt trip, used by manipulators)
What (if any) restrictions do you support for free-speech?
....incitement...real incitement, I mean. (and yes 'the theatre is on fire')
...everything else is fair game.
I'm in favor of teaching everyone not to believe everything they hear.
Critical thinking skills have been replaced by 'feels' logic and 'emotional intelligence' - for this last decade or three, unfortunately.
Everything I do is ultimately motivated by E-MOTION.
All 'celebrities' are idiot jackass monarchs that are put there to Rot (dysgenics) society. Tell them to try to file suit on my opinion.
They are, if they are actually slander or libel. However, opinion is neither.
I disagree. Get them out of our face with their bullshit propaganda, lies, marxist brain rot, narrative, etc, if they don't like public's backlash.
I disagree here too. Your declarations need evidence. Your opinion on 'value' is your opinion.
What (if any) restrictions do you support for free-speech?
Any that actually IS Libel, Slander, OR causes PHYSICAL harm to someone's body(ears) from being too loud.
"I think so and so is a stupid monkey" <-- Opinion. No libel or slander
What about a "news" broadcast that plasters the name and image of a "suspect" across the entire world?
Does that qualify as libel or slander?
It CAN, depending on what was said. And, it can cost them a fortune too, for practicing it.
How's that Smile now?
Strangely this doesn't seem to be front-page news.
Yeah they never report on how Criminal they are....
The fact that they are allowed to operate at all, nullifies this place as a 'Country'.
This is a banana republic full of scared, braindead, shell shocked, sheep.
The entire media should have been burnt to the ground, with a warning that any future LIARS will be torched as well....
But this is the USA, land of the FEE and home of the SLAVE. Morons abound. The Dysgenic nightmare is upon us. At least other countries are 'protesting'.....
Never trust the propaganda...
Problem is, your reputation is just an idea in someone else's mind. You don't own that.
Excellent point.
Wow. You might be on to something.
What (if any) restrictions do you support for free-speech?
Private Property Rights:
It comes down to how one manages one's own private property rights. So, if you were in a hypothetical public town square somewhere either online or offline, the theory would be that you therefore give up some of your rights when entering such a square but to what extent is the active debate. I say it really depends on the rules of whatever square you are in at any given moment.
Public Squares
Square meaning not just a physical location but a contract between parties. So, it really depends on the terms of the covenant between parties. We would have to break that down piece by piece to figure it out. That could take a while. But if you were on your own land and I say something you don't like, then in some ways I have no free speech in your house in the sense that you can ask me to leave for anything I say or do.
Having Exclusive Rights
Not saying you should but my argument is that you should have the right to kick me out of your house at any time for any reason or for no reasons at all. But then again, it depends on the contract between 2 people. So, it is a 2-way street. But that is only if there is a contract between 2 parties.
Outside of Contracts
But apart from a contract or union, you could say I have no freedom of speech at your house at all and that you can do what you want and can have me removed off your property. Not that you necessarily should but that you have the freedom and right to do so depending on the details.
Rights vs Contracts
But at the same time, when you exercise your private property rights to remove me off your property for anything I say or don't say, you might then be breaching, violating, and forfeiting contracts or agreements between me and you for example. So, most often, a person has to juggle and decide whether to honor contracts or rights. So, in other words, you may have the right to do something but doing so could violate covenants between other humans. If you have power to exercise your ownership rights, you may have the right to do so at the cost of destroying social contracts between men and you have to decide constantly which to prioritize at any given moment in life, contracts or rights.
Well,....
https://www.aetv.com/real-crime/winona-ryder-and-7-other-celebrities-who-have-been-caught-stealing
Klepto's gonna klept.
What (if any) restrictions do you support for free-speech?
Change the channel if you don't like it.
I'm even for yelling fire in a theatre, but then I would support the crowd lynching anybody that did if falsely, too.
So, I would have to let you know when I heard it if I was against it, I would speak up, but wouldn't join in efforts to silence the speaker, that I'm aware of.
Soon as I say that somebody will hit me with an example for me to contradict myself with.
Did you have something specific in mind?
I understand what you mean. ....
Though there is something more to say.
These "laws" have been around for a long time, they have been around for an unknown amount of time and they are called differently in different zones of our beautiful earth.
But if by "law" you mean the power of the state, there are also laws already written for this purpose, such as the law against slander or character assassination. We therefore need neither new nor other laws that express such things, because we already have them.
I would also like to say that every new written law that a so-called "constitutional state" writes in its books already exists on such an enormous, unchecked scale that a control of all laws would at the same time entail the complete control of everyone, which at the moment looks like something that could be desired (by whomsoever). So ... when you write an article where you talk about "should" and "law", my question would be whether you don't call upon a spirit that likes to visit you? Because many voices call for laws, but don't realise that these could also come, or else - as with those that already exist - control (which you didn't think was necessary until now) - will come along with all its power.
As denunciation happens and character assassination happens and people publish other people's pictures or whatever, that is probably paradoxically again due to the laws themselves. Because we all know how thick the countless law books are, don't we?
And in comparison, the punishment against the countless violations of the law seems to be quite lenient with the violators, doesn't it (at least for one but not the other)?
Or rather, it seems that vice is hanging by a thread in a time when everyone is talking shit about everyone else, you only have to watch the news or the comment columns to realise all the gossip. So people always make others their role model - law or punishment or not - and they do what everyone does who loses their orientation and their good faith in people. They become misanthropes or nihilists or whatever else you want to call it.
Therefore no, nobody needs more laws and what one "should" not do: We all know that long ago. We also know that the separation of powers always exists for two classes and where the right of one is, is by no means the right of the other. Laws, I theorise, create more problems than solutions.
Would you consider this theory of mine?
I definitely agree.
Laws only protect the rich and privileged.
News organizations can say anything they wish about a poor person "suspected of heinous crimes".
UTOPIA PLAYLIST
UTOPIA PLAYLIST
Thank you.
The most vivid and often used example is the poor man who steals bread and is being punished for stealing, while the rich man stealing bread has the law (or the attorneys) on his side. That's the double standard which springs into the mind.
Great Work.
try this,
https://peakd.com/hive-168088/@artgrafiken/re-logiczombie-qoivnm
Much better
thank you for a fair, great article, have a nice day
Thank you very much for sharing a great post, have a good weekend and a great mood
HOW DO DESTROY ALL RESISTANCE TO LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY
Always get permission from the government before protesting the government.
LUNATIC WITH A LAW DEGREE
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH WITH PRESEARCH
I want to be very clear. You are not obligated to explain anything to me or to justify your beliefs but I am truly mystified that your axioms, such as you have chosen to share them with me, have any power to guide your decision making process or answer what is morally correct or incorrect even if anything actually is morally correct in the way you are describing.
SOURCE CONVO
They are technically cults.
They operate exactly like cults.
They recruit like cults.
They motivate and maintain loyalty using the same methods that cults use.
If people follow you for REWARD then you have mercenaries.
If people follow you for fear of PUNISHMENT then you have slaves.
If people follow you because they want to EMULATE you then you have zealots.
And since it is an indisputable fact that people don't know the inner thoughts...of anyone else, you can never know the motivations behind the actions.
It is fun to see how many Christians mention Heaven or Hell first when asked why they believe.