You're on the PDML. That immediately invalidates the "normal" label.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:08 AM, John Francis wrote:
>
> So there I was watching tonight's NBC coverage of the Decathlon final.
> At one point I paused the playback. My wife remarked that any normal
> male would have paused to
August 1, 2012 8/1/12
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Subject: Re: London Olympics
I realize that the UK has no constitution, but what about "the rights
of Englishmen"?
The American colonies rebelled not because they thought the rights
protecting citizens of England were insuf
On 2 August 2012 03:21, John Sessoms wrote:
> Don't mean nothin' but given the earlier discussion of "What is Hockey?",
> take a look at today's (01Aug2012) Google Doodle.
>
As you rightly say, it "Don't mean nothin'..." Google is a US based
corporation, and uses American English and American na
on 2012-07-31 16:50 AlunFoto - Jostein Øksne wrote
I don't know if my impression of USA is accurate, but it comes across to here as offering
no legal protection against slander to any person that is deemed, by some apparently
magical consensus, to be a "public person". Seems no less worthy of a
Don't mean nothin' but given the earlier discussion of "What is
Hockey?", take a look at today's (01Aug2012) Google Doodle.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
I realize that the UK has no constitution, but what about "the rights
of Englishmen"?
The American colonies rebelled not because they thought the rights
protecting citizens of England were insufficient, but because they
believed that those right were being denied to colonials. Initially,
at least
I don't know if my impression of USA is accurate, but it comes across to here
as offering no legal protection against slander to any person that is deemed,
by some apparently magical consensus, to be a "public person". Seems no less
worthy of a medal to me.
John Sessoms wrote:
>British Police
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> steve harley
>
> on 2012-07-31 16:44 steve harley wrote
> > meanwhile, Twitter has banned, then reinstated, someone who tweeted
> > the business email address of an NBC executive (in disgust over
> > #NBCfail>
>
> and to
on 2012-07-31 16:44 steve harley wrote
meanwhile, Twitter has banned, then reinstated, someone who tweeted the
business email address of an NBC executive (in disgust over #NBCfail>
and to continue our exploration of consequences for utterances, 'Italy's
highest court has ruled that telling a m
I would think PDML members could give the British police a close run.
I did not equate offensive posting to hate speech - I simply pointed
out that there is no single universal definition, and that in every
jurisdiction there is a somewhat arbitrary line drawn somewhere.
I suspect the reported c
w me around shouting at me because I'm a member of the Loony Party,
I can have you charged with harrassment.
B
> -Original Message-
> From: pdml-boun...@pdml.net [mailto:pdml-boun...@pdml.net] On Behalf Of
> Daniel J. Matyola
> Sent: 31 July 2012 22:44
> To: Pentax
If I should tweet "I like cats!", I'm sure many cat haters would find
that offensive. Thus are we reduced to the lowest thin skinned common
denominator. It's rather extreme to elevate poor taste to the level of
"hate speech".
British Police win the gold for stupidity.
From: John Francis
As
No Constitution, so no First Amendment.
From: "Daniel J. Matyola"
I find this very strange. Is offensive tweeting really a crime in
Britain? While the tweeter appears to be a jerk, didn't Daley
increase the harm (if any) from the tweet by republishing it?
UK police arrest teen for tweets a
On 7/31/2012 4:54 PM, Steve Cottrell wrote:
On 31/7/12, Daniel J. Matyola, discombobulated, unleashed:
I find this very strange. Is offensive tweeting really a crime in
Britain? While the tweeter appears to be a jerk, didn't Daley
increase the harm (if any) from the tweet by republishing it?
On 31/7/12, Daniel J. Matyola, discombobulated, unleashed:
>I find this very strange. Is offensive tweeting really a crime in
>Britain? While the tweeter appears to be a jerk, didn't Daley
>increase the harm (if any) from the tweet by republishing it?
The laws are being tested.
It's a criminal
In the US, "hate speech" is actionable or criminal only if it is based
on racial, religion or other classification, or if it is repeated
often enough to become harassment or cyber stalking. If I tweet that
a certain baseball player is a lazy inept bum, and an embarrassment to
his family, that wou
As it says at the bottom of the article you quoted, tweeting messages
considered menacing, offensive or indecent can lead to prosecution.
Even in the USA, where "freedom of speech" is often taken to be
synonymous with "freedom from any consequences of your speech"
there is an exception for 'hate
Wow...
The first thing that went through my mind was that this criminalize stupidity
in a public space. I can't see much good coming from that. :-(
"Daniel J. Matyola" wrote:
>I find this very strange. Is offensive tweeting really a crime in
>Britain? While the tweeter appears to be a jerk,
Quoting Bob W :
Let's hope it's a good one. After a week of gloriously hot and sunny weather
the day itself has dawned wet, just in time.
You probably don't need this, but here is a guide for the perplexed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18983558
Here's an excerpt from the bit about newspa
Let's hope it's a good one. After a week of gloriously hot and sunny weather
the day itself has dawned wet, just in time.
You probably don't need this, but here is a guide for the perplexed:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18983558
Here's an excerpt from the bit about newspaper humour:
'In th
20 matches
Mail list logo
