6 ms·

I think you're really stretching it there. Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to an

I think you're really stretching it there. Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. Not sharing hashcodes to copyrighted works over the internet.

the8472 12y ago
It stretches both ways. Think of other things that are legally considered free speech, things like corporate campaign spending.
stelonix 12y ago
Somehow you see "links to hashes" as stretching freedom of speech and the ability to arbitrarily ban hashes in strings as the way it's supposed to be? I believe you and the parent post have fundamentally different views of what's right, just and moral, and any discussion between you and him/her or anyone else with the same views will lead to nothing.
- icebraining 12y ago
  I believe you and the parent post have fundamentally different views of what's right, just and moral, and any discussion between you and him/her or anyone else with the same views will lead to nothing. Copyright discussions in a nutshell. That's why I only play for sport.
- cinquemb 12y ago
  When people have fundamentally different views of what's right, just and moral, and when outcomes of creating things like tpb could land one in prison, what does one do if they want to live in an environment where creating things like tpb wont land them in prison?
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
ultramancool 12y ago
> Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. Why do people confuse the concept of free speech with some specific political or legal idea? There are many other ways in which a reduction of free speech is extremely harmful. Look at the great firewall of China blocking democratic content, look at reviews being censored by websites or posters afraid of lawsuits. Free speech is important and extends far outside of politics. So please, tell me, is this number illegal to possess or distribute? What sort of disturbing thought or speech crime is that? 1272705567343948816021070860118743823207760906496 I don't think I want to live anywhere where it's illegal to possess or distribute a number.
- aragot 12y ago
  Consequently, it should be understood that bytes can't be stopped from being copied. I wish it wasn't just a point of view. What we're seeing with copyright is governments trying to prevent bits from being copied, which is a pharaonic task and a waste of resources.
  - ultramancool 12y ago
    Well said, it's definitely something that needs to be discussed. That however is separate from distributing simple numbers, which do not ever construct a work, in my opinion.
- kristiandupont 12y ago
  Using Chinese censorship to argue about pirated content is, imo, a variation of the slippery slope fallacy. If someone obtained your family's credit card numbers and PINs, you would consider them to be in their good right to distribute them freely? They're just numbers, after all.
  - ultramancool 12y ago
    > Using Chinese censorship to argue about pirated content is, imo, a variation of the slippery slope fallacy. I was not trying to do so, just using it as an example of freedom of speech being good in other contexts than the purely political. But yes, credit card numbers are piss poor security wise. That's why banks essentially write replacements off. Compromise is expected.

the8472 12y ago

It stretches both ways. Think of other things that are legally considered free speech, things like corporate campaign spending.

stelonix 12y ago

Somehow you see "links to hashes" as stretching freedom of speech and the ability to arbitrarily ban hashes in strings as the way it's supposed to be? I believe you and the parent post have fundamentally different views of what's right, just and moral, and any discussion between you and him/her or anyone else with the same views will lead to nothing.

icebraining 12y ago
I believe you and the parent post have fundamentally different views of what's right, just and moral, and any discussion between you and him/her or anyone else with the same views will lead to nothing. Copyright discussions in a nutshell. That's why I only play for sport.
cinquemb 12y ago
When people have fundamentally different views of what's right, just and moral, and when outcomes of creating things like tpb could land one in prison, what does one do if they want to live in an environment where creating things like tpb wont land them in prison?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

ultramancool 12y ago

> Freedom of speech is the political right to communicate one's opinions and ideas using one's body and property to anyone who is willing to receive them. Why do people confuse the concept of free speech with some specific political or legal idea? There are many other ways in which a reduction of free speech is extremely harmful. Look at the great firewall of China blocking democratic content, look at reviews being censored by websites or posters afraid of lawsuits. Free speech is important and extends far outside of politics. So please, tell me, is this number illegal to possess or distribute? What sort of disturbing thought or speech crime is that? 1272705567343948816021070860118743823207760906496 I don't think I want to live anywhere where it's illegal to possess or distribute a number.

aragot 12y ago
Consequently, it should be understood that bytes can't be stopped from being copied. I wish it wasn't just a point of view. What we're seeing with copyright is governments trying to prevent bits from being copied, which is a pharaonic task and a waste of resources.
- ultramancool 12y ago
  Well said, it's definitely something that needs to be discussed. That however is separate from distributing simple numbers, which do not ever construct a work, in my opinion.
kristiandupont 12y ago
Using Chinese censorship to argue about pirated content is, imo, a variation of the slippery slope fallacy. If someone obtained your family's credit card numbers and PINs, you would consider them to be in their good right to distribute them freely? They're just numbers, after all.
- ultramancool 12y ago
  > Using Chinese censorship to argue about pirated content is, imo, a variation of the slippery slope fallacy. I was not trying to do so, just using it as an example of freedom of speech being good in other contexts than the purely political. But yes, credit card numbers are piss poor security wise. That's why banks essentially write replacements off. Compromise is expected.