Ya I took the exam yesterday at Yale. Pretty long and difficult, everyone stayed for the full 3.5 hours. Professor Polak is a firm believer of having a good spread of scores and so made the exam long and challenging. All in all it was a good class, I just wish he spent more time defining things in a more rigorous way rather than bombarding us with intuition.
Yes it would be illegal in Germany, but here in the US we do have freedom of speech. From flag burning, to KKK rallys and in this case Nazi insignia are all examples of free speech, and protected by the Constitution.
Google can censor this but that would also be sacrificing free speech.
I think its a disgusting theme but I don't think it should be censored, maybe they should get their keywords sorted so it doesn't show up when looking up "Jewish".
"Yes it would be illegal in Germany, but here in the US we do have freedom of speech. From flag burning, to KKK rallys and in this case Nazi insignia are all examples of free speech, and protected by the Constitution."
The 1st amendment is about Congress, not about what retailers allow into their stores for sale.
The first 8 amendments are all defined as protecting individual rights: speech, self-defense, home, private property, self-incrimination, fast/juried trials, and torture. The others are defining limits on what Congress / states can do against the other undefined rights.
Even if Google remove it from their marketplace people could still install it directly. So Google can make the choice not to allow bigotry "in their house" without preventing others from having free speech. Which seems like a reasonable compromise to me.
This is a property rights issue. The existance of these applications damages Google's ability to sell Android phones (see Steve Job's mocking of porn in the Android store as a good example). Google has no obligation to support your speech if it damages their property. They have no obligation to support your speech (i.e. pay to progate it, which clearly they are doing here by paying for the servers).
Basically you are saying you have the "right" to force Google into paying to support your hate speech. Bullshit. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
here in the US we do have freedom of speech. From flag burning, to KKK rallys and in this case Nazi insignia are all examples of free speech, and protected by the Constitution.
To me, Nazi insignia seems like imagery rather than "speech." If you agree it's imagery, do you think that any imagery should be OK to own and distribute, no matter how offensive it is (as with speech)?
Do not agree at all with this, while I do think that nothing majorly wrong is going to come with is and I don't think we are going to be oppressed by our ISPs I do not think that trusting large companies to self-regulate when they have no real competition is a good idea. Verizon, AT&T (and Sprint) don't have any competition, and I can see that AT&T is also happy with this deal.
The larger point is that people are trying to legislate a solution to a problem that we don't even have. The few times that the potential for network abuse has even dared to raise its head, it was quickly defeated by public outcry and market pressure. Network neutrality proponents love to prophesy about the gloomy scenarios that will play out unless we have network neutrality codified - except we don't have it now and it turns out it's not really a problem.
That said, I completely understand the point of the network neutrality advocates. Wouldn't it be nice if we could just write some laws and make sure we don't have to worry about our ISPs shafting us? Sure, but it never works out that way. Industries have a long history of squirming out of the grip of their regulatory bodies until they're using (and writing) the regulations themselves. That is a problem that we have now.
Look at how agribusiness controls the USDA. Or big pharma controls health care legislation. Or Wall Street's influence on economic policy. What do you think will happen when Verizon, Google, AT&T, etc. are pumping millions into Capitol Hill and their ex VPs are heading up various FCC committees...
And that doesn't even touch on the inevitable unintended consequences. Perhaps the darkest side of network neutrality legislation.
