What's in the news?

[Icelandic]

Isn't factual information, by definition, true? Maybe that was just worded weirdly, because it's a bit confusing.

Indeed, and that is what's so concerning about that ruling.

The statement that got the defendant in trouble was “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”. That is an objective fact followed by an open-ended question about what that fact would imply. It shows that in the EU, reality might not even be free from censorship.

[TheGlyphstone]

Indeed, and that is what's so concerning about that ruling.

The statement that got the defendant in trouble was “A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?”. That is an objective fact followed by an open-ended question about what that fact would imply. It shows that in the EU, reality might not even be free from censorship.

Maybe I was unclear then, because the way you worded it implied something could be both factual and false. That was the confusing bit.

I thought the article covered it pretty well actually - neatly taking apart the person's arguments that they were just fostering discussion and not trying to be deliberately insulting/inflammatory, and also undercutting the problematic aspects of suppressing speech like that. No one is in the right there.

[Icelandic]

Maybe I was unclear then, because the way you worded it implied something could be both factual and false. That was the confusing bit.

I thought the article covered it pretty well actually - neatly taking apart the person's arguments that they were just fostering discussion and not trying to be deliberately insulting/inflammatory, and also undercutting the problematic aspects of suppressing speech like that. No one is in the right there.

Ah I see.

Yea, the surrounding contexts of the conversation had is important. Being hosted by a far-right party, I'm not gunna deny that the conversation did not have it's own ideological purpose. But even with that context added, does stating a fact become more slanderous?

[TheGlyphstone]

Ah I see.

Yea, the surrounding contexts of the conversation had is important. Being hosted by a far-right party, I'm not gunna deny that the conversation did not have it's own ideological purpose. But even with that context added, does stating a fact become more slanderous?

A fact simply stated, I'd argue no. But it's still very easy to twist a statement with factual content into something slanderous, or at least provocative. To keep using this specific example, the statement that a 56-year old man married a six-year old child is factual (taking the texts of the dominant Islamic traditions as authoritative sources). Prefacing that with 'he liked to do it with children' is where it becomes potentially slanderous, because it's no longer stating fact but interpretation or opinion. That leaves aside the bit where the marriage wasn't supposedly consummated until age nine, which is equally as awful in an objective sense but does undermine her claim. I really, really don't want to let my brain go down these roads, but I can envision certain ritualistic or ceremonial circumstances where such an act could occur without desire or repetition.

Instead I'll take shelter in doing research on US law, which has lead me to the old classic 'yelling fire in a crowded theater', from Brandenberg vs. Ohio apparently. Assuming that article is correct - Wikipedia tends to be more reliable on boring stuff like law simply because fewer people care enough to edit those pages - E.S.' statement has to pass the three tests of 'intent', 'imminence', and 'likelihood'. By Brandenburg's definitions, E.S. doesn't meet any of them; her statement is clearly intended to inflame anti-Islamic opinion, but falls short of deliberately calling for violence. There's no clear and present danger of violence resulting from that specific act, so imminence is out. Likelihood is iffy at best; it could raise the potential for violence against or by Muslims, but it might not and the people who would be incited to violence by it are the sort already proven to be resorting to violent ends already. So if that was said in the US, she'd be in the clear.

[RedRose]

The Académie Française is fighting the new concept of "inclusive writing" and non binary pronouns. I'll try to find a good article.

[Icelandic]

A fact simply stated, I'd argue no. But it's still very easy to twist a statement with factual content into something slanderous, or at least provocative. To keep using this specific example, the statement that a 56-year old man married a six-year old child is factual (taking the texts of the dominant Islamic traditions as authoritative sources). Prefacing that with 'he liked to do it with children' is where it becomes potentially slanderous, because it's no longer stating fact but interpretation or opinion. That leaves aside the bit where the marriage wasn't supposedly consummated until age nine, which is equally as awful in an objective sense but does undermine her claim. I really, really don't want to let my brain go down these roads, but I can envision certain ritualistic or ceremonial circumstances where such an act could occur without desire or repetition.

Instead I'll take shelter in doing research on US law, which has lead me to the old classic 'yelling fire in a crowded theater', from Brandenberg vs. Ohio apparently. Assuming that article is correct - Wikipedia tends to be more reliable on boring stuff like law simply because fewer people care enough to edit those pages - E.S.' statement has to pass the three tests of 'intent', 'imminence', and 'likelihood'. By Brandenburg's definitions, E.S. doesn't meet any of them; her statement is clearly intended to inflame anti-Islamic opinion, but falls short of deliberately calling for violence. There's no clear and present danger of violence resulting from that specific act, so imminence is out. Likelihood is iffy at best; it could raise the potential for violence against or by Muslims, but it might not and the people who would be incited to violence by it are the sort already proven to be resorting to violent ends already. So if that was said in the US, she'd be in the clear.

Nothing I disagree with there. I just think that censoring statements for being offensive or hurtful, even if those statements might be true, is a VERY bad idea, regardless of what the purpose is behind saying those statements.

The Académie Française is fighting the new concept of "inclusive writing" and non binary pronouns. I'll try to find a good article.

I'm curious to read about that too. Please post c:

[TheGlyphstone]

Yeah, I dont think its good either.

[gaggedLouise]

The Académie Française is fighting the new concept of "inclusive writing" and non binary pronouns. I'll try to find a good article.

French as a language actually makes it easier than English to talk about people without giving away their gender - pronouns like leur/s ("their", plural, masculine or mixed/non-ref) and ses ("his/her/their") make no distinction between male or female agents, so they are open to using in a casual way for non-binaries too. Plus it's much easier in French to avoid putting in a pronoun at all for some characters by means of sentence construction.

But inventing a new pronoun that would directly indicate that the person doesn't wish to be seen as steadily male or female at all, that's a major step into the unknown. I'll be following this one too. :)

[gaggedLouise]

Elon Musk says he is seriously considering following his own trail to Mars to live there. ^_^

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/25/elon-musk-move-mars-chance-of-death

This is likely just another PR stunt to help keep his proposed Mars colonization fleet in the news, but if he's really on to the idea, I guess he should think very carefully about whom he appoints as his deputy, because he damn well won't be able to lead SpaceX from the red planet.

[Tolvo]

*Reads the title of the article*

Do it Elon, the rest of us have nothing to lose.

[gaggedLouise]

*Reads the title of the article*

Do it Elon, the rest of us have nothing to lose.

Mail delivery to:

"SpaceX Inc. Overspace Division
c/o Musk
Pioneer Camp 1
Tharsis plateau
MARS"

*giggles*

[Tolvo]

Mail delivery to:

"SpaceX Inc. Overspace Division
c/o Musk
Pioneer Camp 1
Tharsis plateau
MARS"

*giggles*

It really is a win/win scenario for us no matter how that turns out.

[Blythe]

https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=296741.0

Russia/Ukraine/etc. topic has been split to the above thread--further replies or news on that subject should go there.

[Tolvo]

You say that but let's wait and see if Elon builds a sub to try and solve this conflict.

[Blythe]

Thanks for the speedy response Blythe, could you move the posts about Elon Musk and his Mars migration back to the News thread too? :)

Whoops. Must have accidentally caught those in the split. Will split those off here and merge'em back into the News in a bit.

[Blythe]

H'okay, Elon Musk posts moved back to here. >_>

[Tolvo]

Some people are saying a little girl has died due to the tear gas, but I can't find any actual sources on that. Like it definitely could happen but I want to know if it did.

I know this is just depressing. Especially since while the USA did just commit illegal war crimes against children, the people who did it are protected by Bush era laws that means that we can stop our own people from being tried in international court for war crimes. God this is all so fucked up.

[Lustful Bride]

Anyone with a Spinal Cord stimulator might want to make sure theirs are up to date or keep an eye on it as some are reporting being harmed by it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/patients-shocked-burned-by-device-touted-to-treat-pain/ar-BBQ4KOW?ocid=spartandhp

[Beguile's Mistress]

Anyone with a Spinal Cord stimulator might want to make sure theirs are up to date or keep an eye on it as some are reporting being harmed by it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/patients-shocked-burned-by-device-touted-to-treat-pain/ar-BBQ4KOW?ocid=spartandhp

I saw a segment about that on NBC Nightly News tonight.  They've been in use for over 40 years with hundreds of thousands of successful implants but the ones that don't work, either because they are defective, broken, or improperly implanted, can be pretty nasty.

[Lustful Bride]

I saw a segment about that on NBC Nightly News tonight.  They've been in use for over 40 years with hundreds of thousands of successful implants but the ones that don't work, either because they are defective, broken, or improperly implanted, can be pretty nasty.

My mother actually has one as well. She's had it for years now though, so hopefully it continues to work.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I know someone who is talking to his doctor about getting one.  I know I should ask him some questions about any research he may have done but he is in terrible pain right now and if it works it would be wonderful for him.

[Sara Nilsson]

Been talking to my doc about getting one. Now I am not sure.. I know they are generally safe but when stuff that like malfunctions it usually goes really bad.

[gaggedLouise]

Anyone with a Spinal Cord stimulator might want to make sure theirs are up to date or keep an eye on it as some are reporting being harmed by it.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/patients-shocked-burned-by-device-touted-to-treat-pain/ar-BBQ4KOW?ocid=spartandhp

There was an interview on the evening tv news over here with a man who had suffered almost eighty powerful electric shocks to his heart when his defibrillator (a kind of powerful pacemaker) wiring malfunctioned. :( Yikes. He had thought he was going to die.

[RedRose]

Macron claims the gilets jaunes are heavily infiltrated by ultra right and ultra left agitators (duh) and encourages the police to respond strongly. People are calling him irresponsible.

Some gilets jaunes inspect trucks for migrants to turn in to the police (so they like migrants even less than they like police).

I really wish there were up to date articles in English...

[Lustful Bride]

So Economic Crimes are now a thing in China I wonder how long until they will openly start charging people with Thought Crimes?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-bars-us-citizens-from-leaving-over-economic-crimes/ar-BBQ6uhe?ocid=spartandhp