<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_11_1746206</id>
	<title>British Men Jailed For Online Hate Crimes</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1247337180000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>chrb writes <i>"Two British men have become the first to be jailed for <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north\_yorkshire/8144366.stm">inciting racial hatred online</a>. The men believed that material they published on web servers based in the United States did not fall under the jurisdiction of UK law and was protected under the First Amendment. This argument was rejected by the British trial judge. After being found guilty, the men fled to Los Angeles, where they <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8010537.stm">attempted to claim political asylum</a>, again arguing that they were being persecuted by the British government for speech that was protected under the First Amendment. <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/03/local/me-brits-jailed3">The asylum bid was rejected</a> and the two were deported back to the UK after spending over a year in a US jail."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>chrb writes " Two British men have become the first to be jailed for inciting racial hatred online .
The men believed that material they published on web servers based in the United States did not fall under the jurisdiction of UK law and was protected under the First Amendment .
This argument was rejected by the British trial judge .
After being found guilty , the men fled to Los Angeles , where they attempted to claim political asylum , again arguing that they were being persecuted by the British government for speech that was protected under the First Amendment .
The asylum bid was rejected and the two were deported back to the UK after spending over a year in a US jail .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>chrb writes "Two British men have become the first to be jailed for inciting racial hatred online.
The men believed that material they published on web servers based in the United States did not fall under the jurisdiction of UK law and was protected under the First Amendment.
This argument was rejected by the British trial judge.
After being found guilty, the men fled to Los Angeles, where they attempted to claim political asylum, again arguing that they were being persecuted by the British government for speech that was protected under the First Amendment.
The asylum bid was rejected and the two were deported back to the UK after spending over a year in a US jail.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663105</id>
	<title>thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1247306160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thoughts <i> are </i> words. But you're right that thought can become action. This is the point of criminalizing thought--to prevent crime before it can happen. Take away the ability to commit crimes, however, and you've taken away the ability to obey the law.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thoughts are words .
But you 're right that thought can become action .
This is the point of criminalizing thought--to prevent crime before it can happen .
Take away the ability to commit crimes , however , and you 've taken away the ability to obey the law .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thoughts  are  words.
But you're right that thought can become action.
This is the point of criminalizing thought--to prevent crime before it can happen.
Take away the ability to commit crimes, however, and you've taken away the ability to obey the law.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662307</id>
	<title>Re:Point of Origin?</title>
	<author>Quothz</author>
	<datestamp>1247343300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Here we go again! If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?</p></div><p>That would be due to the British Nationality Act of 1948, which asserts British criminal jurisdiction over British citizens for crimes committed overseas. The US has a similar law, as do many nations.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we go again !
If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction ? That would be due to the British Nationality Act of 1948 , which asserts British criminal jurisdiction over British citizens for crimes committed overseas .
The US has a similar law , as do many nations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we go again!
If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?That would be due to the British Nationality Act of 1948, which asserts British criminal jurisdiction over British citizens for crimes committed overseas.
The US has a similar law, as do many nations.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662455</id>
	<title>Re:!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>Macrat</author>
	<datestamp>1247344200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't tell someone that you're going to kill them and expect to get away with it.</p></div><p>I guess you never went to public school.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't tell someone that you 're going to kill them and expect to get away with it.I guess you never went to public school .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't tell someone that you're going to kill them and expect to get away with it.I guess you never went to public school.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28674321</id>
	<title>Small risk?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1247487480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is all fine and dandy  to say when you are not a Jewish person living in the UK....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is all fine and dandy to say when you are not a Jewish person living in the UK... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is all fine and dandy  to say when you are not a Jewish person living in the UK....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662217</id>
	<title>Re:Point of Origin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247342760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or perhaps the court argument was that if British citizens publish illegal material that is accessible in the UK, it doesn't actually matter where the material is *held*. They wrote it, and published it *to* the server from the UK after all.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or perhaps the court argument was that if British citizens publish illegal material that is accessible in the UK , it does n't actually matter where the material is * held * .
They wrote it , and published it * to * the server from the UK after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or perhaps the court argument was that if British citizens publish illegal material that is accessible in the UK, it doesn't actually matter where the material is *held*.
They wrote it, and published it *to* the server from the UK after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663969</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1247312940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1. Laws prohibiting harassment are also wrong<br>
3. This is usually called stealing <br>
4. Slander does or at least should require that you demonstrate actual damages (Sorry if I hurt your feelings by telling people you are gay, but really that's your fault for hating gays. If it got you fired, maybe you should sue your boss. I will testify that you are gay if you want.)<br> <br>

"The way the world works" is not an argument. A lot of people disagreed with the "gadfly" Socrates, punishing him was still not right.</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
Laws prohibiting harassment are also wrong 3 .
This is usually called stealing 4 .
Slander does or at least should require that you demonstrate actual damages ( Sorry if I hurt your feelings by telling people you are gay , but really that 's your fault for hating gays .
If it got you fired , maybe you should sue your boss .
I will testify that you are gay if you want .
) " The way the world works " is not an argument .
A lot of people disagreed with the " gadfly " Socrates , punishing him was still not right .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
Laws prohibiting harassment are also wrong
3.
This is usually called stealing 
4.
Slander does or at least should require that you demonstrate actual damages (Sorry if I hurt your feelings by telling people you are gay, but really that's your fault for hating gays.
If it got you fired, maybe you should sue your boss.
I will testify that you are gay if you want.
) 

"The way the world works" is not an argument.
A lot of people disagreed with the "gadfly" Socrates, punishing him was still not right.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665443</id>
	<title>Re:No Asylum?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1247334180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or maybe the U.S. authorities didn't want those people to have residence in the U.S. - every country has the right to preclude people it considers "undesirable" (for <em>any</em> reason) to settle in it, and there's no presumption of innocence there. If an immigration officer believes that you're a net negative to society, he'll send you packing. And I don't see how these guys could contribute anything useful to the U.S. society.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or maybe the U.S. authorities did n't want those people to have residence in the U.S. - every country has the right to preclude people it considers " undesirable " ( for any reason ) to settle in it , and there 's no presumption of innocence there .
If an immigration officer believes that you 're a net negative to society , he 'll send you packing .
And I do n't see how these guys could contribute anything useful to the U.S. society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or maybe the U.S. authorities didn't want those people to have residence in the U.S. - every country has the right to preclude people it considers "undesirable" (for any reason) to settle in it, and there's no presumption of innocence there.
If an immigration officer believes that you're a net negative to society, he'll send you packing.
And I don't see how these guys could contribute anything useful to the U.S. society.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663605</id>
	<title>Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1247309700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would REALLY love to know why they think the Bill of rights applies to them in ANY way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would REALLY love to know why they think the Bill of rights applies to them in ANY way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would REALLY love to know why they think the Bill of rights applies to them in ANY way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665459</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1247334540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>But if you are black or a muslim or a jew or a woman or any other group that is the subject of hate groups then it becomes a different story.</p></div><p>It's an interesting listing that you've got there. Given that you yourself mentioned Theo van Gogh, how about adding "non-muslim" on that list?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But if you are black or a muslim or a jew or a woman or any other group that is the subject of hate groups then it becomes a different story.It 's an interesting listing that you 've got there .
Given that you yourself mentioned Theo van Gogh , how about adding " non-muslim " on that list ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if you are black or a muslim or a jew or a woman or any other group that is the subject of hate groups then it becomes a different story.It's an interesting listing that you've got there.
Given that you yourself mentioned Theo van Gogh, how about adding "non-muslim" on that list?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662135</id>
	<title>Passport question for the UK folks . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247342340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> . . . don't convicted criminals have their passports confiscated, while awaiting sentencing?
</p><p>I just find it bizarre, that they can just hop on a plane to LA.
</p><p>This would be a great Monty Python sketch with Eric Idle, as the bloke checking the passports on exiting the country:
</p><p>"Ah, going to Los Angles, super, super!  Business?  No, holiday?  Ah, spit, which one is it?"
</p><p>"We are convicted criminals leaving the country, to apply for asylum in the United States."
</p><p>"Ok, off you go then!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.
. .
do n't convicted criminals have their passports confiscated , while awaiting sentencing ?
I just find it bizarre , that they can just hop on a plane to LA .
This would be a great Monty Python sketch with Eric Idle , as the bloke checking the passports on exiting the country : " Ah , going to Los Angles , super , super !
Business ? No , holiday ?
Ah , spit , which one is it ?
" " We are convicted criminals leaving the country , to apply for asylum in the United States .
" " Ok , off you go then !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> .
. .
don't convicted criminals have their passports confiscated, while awaiting sentencing?
I just find it bizarre, that they can just hop on a plane to LA.
This would be a great Monty Python sketch with Eric Idle, as the bloke checking the passports on exiting the country:
"Ah, going to Los Angles, super, super!
Business?  No, holiday?
Ah, spit, which one is it?
"
"We are convicted criminals leaving the country, to apply for asylum in the United States.
"
"Ok, off you go then!
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28708839</id>
	<title>Why Los Angeles?</title>
	<author>Benfea</author>
	<datestamp>1247655000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as I feel even the worst scum should have their rantings protected under the First Amendment, and as much as I find it reprehensible that the British government wanted to prosecute them, why the @$#\% did they seek asylum in Los Angeles? If you were a foreign bigot looking for a place in America to seek asylum, wouldn't you be better off somewhere in Mississippi or Alabama? Were they hoping that the famously racist LA police would protect them?</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as I feel even the worst scum should have their rantings protected under the First Amendment , and as much as I find it reprehensible that the British government wanted to prosecute them , why the @ $ # \ % did they seek asylum in Los Angeles ?
If you were a foreign bigot looking for a place in America to seek asylum , would n't you be better off somewhere in Mississippi or Alabama ?
Were they hoping that the famously racist LA police would protect them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as I feel even the worst scum should have their rantings protected under the First Amendment, and as much as I find it reprehensible that the British government wanted to prosecute them, why the @$#\% did they seek asylum in Los Angeles?
If you were a foreign bigot looking for a place in America to seek asylum, wouldn't you be better off somewhere in Mississippi or Alabama?
Were they hoping that the famously racist LA police would protect them?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664751</id>
	<title>Time to OVERTHROW the facist UK government</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247322900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't keep your money and now you can't say what you think.</p><p>What freedom is left there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't keep your money and now you ca n't say what you think.What freedom is left there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't keep your money and now you can't say what you think.What freedom is left there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665159</id>
	<title>Which is worse?</title>
	<author>blindseer</author>
	<datestamp>1247329980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know who to hate more, the UK government for jailing men on the content of their speech or the USA government for not granting them asylum?</p><p>What happened to this land of the free and home of the brave I've heard about?  The judges that did not grant asylum were spineless.  They were probably more concerned about placating a supposed ally than about protecting freedom.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know who to hate more , the UK government for jailing men on the content of their speech or the USA government for not granting them asylum ? What happened to this land of the free and home of the brave I 've heard about ?
The judges that did not grant asylum were spineless .
They were probably more concerned about placating a supposed ally than about protecting freedom .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know who to hate more, the UK government for jailing men on the content of their speech or the USA government for not granting them asylum?What happened to this land of the free and home of the brave I've heard about?
The judges that did not grant asylum were spineless.
They were probably more concerned about placating a supposed ally than about protecting freedom.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664419</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>Dr Damage I</author>
	<datestamp>1247317620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male. What does this group have to fear from hate speech? They control the US</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not sure whether to award this the poorly timed comment of the year award (just exactly <i>what</i> color is Americas president exactly?) or to declare it the single most compressed example of racism, heterephobia, christophobia and androphobia in a single sentence.<br> <br>  What "this group" has to fear from hate speech is exactly the same thing that Theo Van Gogh had to fear, as you yourself point out.  Ironically, despite characterizing his murder as a hate crime, you specifically exclude white males like Theo Van Gogh from requiring protection against hate crimes.  Even if you did concede that some very few white males might require such protection, would this have prevented or ameliorated his murder in any way?<br> <br>A crime committed against a green woman of unusual sexuality who worships the great green arkleseizure is no less a crime if it is committed against a white heterosexual christian male.  If you're going to forbid people from speaking their mind, forbid equally.  Because categorizing people by color, race, sexuality and religion as you explicitly do is <b>stupid</b>.  It's all very well for some twit who has exactly zero political influence beyond his single vote to categorize folk based on such criteria and we should tolerate that stupidity.  It's quite another thing for the state to put the armed force of its will behind such categorizations.<br> <br>  A white heterosexual christian male from Ordinarytown Somewhereobscure has exactly <i>nothing</i> in common with Joe "No stimulus for white male construction workers" Biden.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white , christian , hetero-sexual , middle class male .
What does this group have to fear from hate speech ?
They control the USI 'm not sure whether to award this the poorly timed comment of the year award ( just exactly what color is Americas president exactly ?
) or to declare it the single most compressed example of racism , heterephobia , christophobia and androphobia in a single sentence .
What " this group " has to fear from hate speech is exactly the same thing that Theo Van Gogh had to fear , as you yourself point out .
Ironically , despite characterizing his murder as a hate crime , you specifically exclude white males like Theo Van Gogh from requiring protection against hate crimes .
Even if you did concede that some very few white males might require such protection , would this have prevented or ameliorated his murder in any way ?
A crime committed against a green woman of unusual sexuality who worships the great green arkleseizure is no less a crime if it is committed against a white heterosexual christian male .
If you 're going to forbid people from speaking their mind , forbid equally .
Because categorizing people by color , race , sexuality and religion as you explicitly do is stupid .
It 's all very well for some twit who has exactly zero political influence beyond his single vote to categorize folk based on such criteria and we should tolerate that stupidity .
It 's quite another thing for the state to put the armed force of its will behind such categorizations .
A white heterosexual christian male from Ordinarytown Somewhereobscure has exactly nothing in common with Joe " No stimulus for white male construction workers " Biden .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male.
What does this group have to fear from hate speech?
They control the USI'm not sure whether to award this the poorly timed comment of the year award (just exactly what color is Americas president exactly?
) or to declare it the single most compressed example of racism, heterephobia, christophobia and androphobia in a single sentence.
What "this group" has to fear from hate speech is exactly the same thing that Theo Van Gogh had to fear, as you yourself point out.
Ironically, despite characterizing his murder as a hate crime, you specifically exclude white males like Theo Van Gogh from requiring protection against hate crimes.
Even if you did concede that some very few white males might require such protection, would this have prevented or ameliorated his murder in any way?
A crime committed against a green woman of unusual sexuality who worships the great green arkleseizure is no less a crime if it is committed against a white heterosexual christian male.
If you're going to forbid people from speaking their mind, forbid equally.
Because categorizing people by color, race, sexuality and religion as you explicitly do is stupid.
It's all very well for some twit who has exactly zero political influence beyond his single vote to categorize folk based on such criteria and we should tolerate that stupidity.
It's quite another thing for the state to put the armed force of its will behind such categorizations.
A white heterosexual christian male from Ordinarytown Somewhereobscure has exactly nothing in common with Joe "No stimulus for white male construction workers" Biden.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662475</id>
	<title>Re:The UK does not have free speech.</title>
	<author>bitt3n</author>
	<datestamp>1247344380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you can't say something other people don't want to hear, you do not have free speech.</p></div><p>I argue this whenever I read limericks at a poetry jam, but they still throw their coffee cups at me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't say something other people do n't want to hear , you do not have free speech.I argue this whenever I read limericks at a poetry jam , but they still throw their coffee cups at me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't say something other people don't want to hear, you do not have free speech.I argue this whenever I read limericks at a poetry jam, but they still throw their coffee cups at me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661935</id>
	<title>Testicles.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247340900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662845</id>
	<title>Re:Point of Origin?</title>
	<author>DrXym</author>
	<datestamp>1247304120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Here we go again! If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction? Are they claiming that because English addresses received the materials that English laws are in play? Or is this another treaty driven action in an American court? And England is a hoot compared to France. France really does want to reach out and control the world.</i>
<p>
If they were published in the US by people residing in the UK, and who posted them from the UK, then what the hell difference does it make. It would be like a US citizen lamely claiming that when they threatened to kill the president they did so via servers in Russia. So fucking what.
</p><p>
I'd add that the US certainly hasn't exactly made the jurisdictional distinction when dealing with online gambling, encryption / DRM, hackers or piracy sites. There are plenty of examples of people being arrested when entering the US for "crimes" that were perfectly legal in their own country, e.g. Dmitry Sklyarov. So it's not a one way street.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we go again !
If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction ?
Are they claiming that because English addresses received the materials that English laws are in play ?
Or is this another treaty driven action in an American court ?
And England is a hoot compared to France .
France really does want to reach out and control the world .
If they were published in the US by people residing in the UK , and who posted them from the UK , then what the hell difference does it make .
It would be like a US citizen lamely claiming that when they threatened to kill the president they did so via servers in Russia .
So fucking what .
I 'd add that the US certainly has n't exactly made the jurisdictional distinction when dealing with online gambling , encryption / DRM , hackers or piracy sites .
There are plenty of examples of people being arrested when entering the US for " crimes " that were perfectly legal in their own country , e.g .
Dmitry Sklyarov .
So it 's not a one way street .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here we go again!
If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?
Are they claiming that because English addresses received the materials that English laws are in play?
Or is this another treaty driven action in an American court?
And England is a hoot compared to France.
France really does want to reach out and control the world.
If they were published in the US by people residing in the UK, and who posted them from the UK, then what the hell difference does it make.
It would be like a US citizen lamely claiming that when they threatened to kill the president they did so via servers in Russia.
So fucking what.
I'd add that the US certainly hasn't exactly made the jurisdictional distinction when dealing with online gambling, encryption / DRM, hackers or piracy sites.
There are plenty of examples of people being arrested when entering the US for "crimes" that were perfectly legal in their own country, e.g.
Dmitry Sklyarov.
So it's not a one way street.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28674307</id>
	<title>Oh please, that is the lamest joke.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1247487240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The government in Yugoslavia had ethnic cleansing in mind.</p><p>To compare both, even as a joke, is ludicrous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The government in Yugoslavia had ethnic cleansing in mind.To compare both , even as a joke , is ludicrous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The government in Yugoslavia had ethnic cleansing in mind.To compare both, even as a joke, is ludicrous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665659</id>
	<title>Re:assumption</title>
	<author>johanatan</author>
	<datestamp>1247338740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>P.S. That first passage [from John] actually concerns deceivers aka 'wolves in sheep's clothing' [i.e., those people who claim to be believers only for whatever earthly advantages they see being attached to such or in order to undermine and destroy the church].</htmltext>
<tokenext>P.S .
That first passage [ from John ] actually concerns deceivers aka 'wolves in sheep 's clothing ' [ i.e. , those people who claim to be believers only for whatever earthly advantages they see being attached to such or in order to undermine and destroy the church ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>P.S.
That first passage [from John] actually concerns deceivers aka 'wolves in sheep's clothing' [i.e., those people who claim to be believers only for whatever earthly advantages they see being attached to such or in order to undermine and destroy the church].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665353</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662083</id>
	<title>Apparently Free Speech rights do not cover Hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247341860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Speech. At one time it did, but now there are limits to free speech. Both in the UK and USA now.</p><p>I guess that means we can send the KKK and Nazi groups in the USA to jail then for distributing hate speech materials. Also track down the "Anonymous" group for hate speech against Scientologists, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Speech .
At one time it did , but now there are limits to free speech .
Both in the UK and USA now.I guess that means we can send the KKK and Nazi groups in the USA to jail then for distributing hate speech materials .
Also track down the " Anonymous " group for hate speech against Scientologists , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Speech.
At one time it did, but now there are limits to free speech.
Both in the UK and USA now.I guess that means we can send the KKK and Nazi groups in the USA to jail then for distributing hate speech materials.
Also track down the "Anonymous" group for hate speech against Scientologists, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662675</id>
	<title>Re:!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>SoVeryTired</author>
	<datestamp>1247345880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But why do we need to make seperate laws for hate speech? Surely it's the "violence" part of incitement to violence which is the crime, rather than the racial or cultural motivation behind the attack.</p><p>Under hate speech laws, I could be imprisoned for complaining that Asian people drive badly. Yes, it's a silly thing to say, and perhaps even a bit racist, but is it really the same as rounding up the locals to go beat up some immigrants?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But why do we need to make seperate laws for hate speech ?
Surely it 's the " violence " part of incitement to violence which is the crime , rather than the racial or cultural motivation behind the attack.Under hate speech laws , I could be imprisoned for complaining that Asian people drive badly .
Yes , it 's a silly thing to say , and perhaps even a bit racist , but is it really the same as rounding up the locals to go beat up some immigrants ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But why do we need to make seperate laws for hate speech?
Surely it's the "violence" part of incitement to violence which is the crime, rather than the racial or cultural motivation behind the attack.Under hate speech laws, I could be imprisoned for complaining that Asian people drive badly.
Yes, it's a silly thing to say, and perhaps even a bit racist, but is it really the same as rounding up the locals to go beat up some immigrants?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662413</id>
	<title>Re:!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247344020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Publishing words that incite hatred is not "thoughtcrime". Words are not thoughts. You can think whatever hatred or whatever else you want. But speech is an action, a real act in the world that affects other people. Not all acts, not all speech or expressions, particularly in public, are protected. You do not have the right to speak in a way that harms people. And currently, as always in history, published hate speech forms links in the critical path from protected hateful thoughts to non-protected violent acts that physically harm people. Those links are on the action side of the thought/action boundary.</p></div></blockquote><p>How do you decide whether speech is harmful?  Which magical all-knowing magistrate do you trust which this authority?  And remember that this magistrate, by deciding what speech others may utter, will also decide what speech you may listen to.  Are you really such a child that you cannot decide this for yourself?</p><p>Appropriate:<br><a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6379618149058958603" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6379618149058958603</a> [google.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Publishing words that incite hatred is not " thoughtcrime " .
Words are not thoughts .
You can think whatever hatred or whatever else you want .
But speech is an action , a real act in the world that affects other people .
Not all acts , not all speech or expressions , particularly in public , are protected .
You do not have the right to speak in a way that harms people .
And currently , as always in history , published hate speech forms links in the critical path from protected hateful thoughts to non-protected violent acts that physically harm people .
Those links are on the action side of the thought/action boundary.How do you decide whether speech is harmful ?
Which magical all-knowing magistrate do you trust which this authority ?
And remember that this magistrate , by deciding what speech others may utter , will also decide what speech you may listen to .
Are you really such a child that you can not decide this for yourself ? Appropriate : http : //video.google.com/videoplay ? docid = 6379618149058958603 [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Publishing words that incite hatred is not "thoughtcrime".
Words are not thoughts.
You can think whatever hatred or whatever else you want.
But speech is an action, a real act in the world that affects other people.
Not all acts, not all speech or expressions, particularly in public, are protected.
You do not have the right to speak in a way that harms people.
And currently, as always in history, published hate speech forms links in the critical path from protected hateful thoughts to non-protected violent acts that physically harm people.
Those links are on the action side of the thought/action boundary.How do you decide whether speech is harmful?
Which magical all-knowing magistrate do you trust which this authority?
And remember that this magistrate, by deciding what speech others may utter, will also decide what speech you may listen to.
Are you really such a child that you cannot decide this for yourself?Appropriate:http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6379618149058958603 [google.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665945</id>
	<title>Re:assumption</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1247431560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Christianity does nothing of the sort (but it doesn't surprise me that you think so).</i></p><p>Mainstream Christianity teaches that all the "unrepentant sinners" go to hell, a place of eternal suffering and without hope, frequently depicted as a place in which people are tortured by fire for all eternity.  This is supposedly the judgment of the ultimate good and merciful moral authority, God.</p><p>How much more hateful can you get than to say "you are so evil that even the most merciful being in the whole universe decides to make you suffer horribly for all eternity"?  And it is not like Christians have been peaceful.  In fact, it is this attitude towards others that has been used by Christians for two millennia to justify violence against others.</p><p>Christian theology is intrinsically hateful and discriminatory, and Christian theology has caused some of the worst hate crimes in human history.</p><p><i>Next time you think that, however, I'd challenge you to actually read the words of Christ and then say that again.</i></p><p>Christianity wouldn't have survived this long without having mastered PR, FUD, and target marketing.  A few nice-sounding quotes from Christ don't change 2000 years of intolerance and hatred actually preached and practiced by Christians.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Christianity does nothing of the sort ( but it does n't surprise me that you think so ) .Mainstream Christianity teaches that all the " unrepentant sinners " go to hell , a place of eternal suffering and without hope , frequently depicted as a place in which people are tortured by fire for all eternity .
This is supposedly the judgment of the ultimate good and merciful moral authority , God.How much more hateful can you get than to say " you are so evil that even the most merciful being in the whole universe decides to make you suffer horribly for all eternity " ?
And it is not like Christians have been peaceful .
In fact , it is this attitude towards others that has been used by Christians for two millennia to justify violence against others.Christian theology is intrinsically hateful and discriminatory , and Christian theology has caused some of the worst hate crimes in human history.Next time you think that , however , I 'd challenge you to actually read the words of Christ and then say that again.Christianity would n't have survived this long without having mastered PR , FUD , and target marketing .
A few nice-sounding quotes from Christ do n't change 2000 years of intolerance and hatred actually preached and practiced by Christians .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Christianity does nothing of the sort (but it doesn't surprise me that you think so).Mainstream Christianity teaches that all the "unrepentant sinners" go to hell, a place of eternal suffering and without hope, frequently depicted as a place in which people are tortured by fire for all eternity.
This is supposedly the judgment of the ultimate good and merciful moral authority, God.How much more hateful can you get than to say "you are so evil that even the most merciful being in the whole universe decides to make you suffer horribly for all eternity"?
And it is not like Christians have been peaceful.
In fact, it is this attitude towards others that has been used by Christians for two millennia to justify violence against others.Christian theology is intrinsically hateful and discriminatory, and Christian theology has caused some of the worst hate crimes in human history.Next time you think that, however, I'd challenge you to actually read the words of Christ and then say that again.Christianity wouldn't have survived this long without having mastered PR, FUD, and target marketing.
A few nice-sounding quotes from Christ don't change 2000 years of intolerance and hatred actually preached and practiced by Christians.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28675183</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247495100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The US, where you can't say fuck, show a boody or a <b>brandname</b> </i></p><p>Um, what?  You can show whatever brand name you want to show, ESPECIALLY if it is advertisement.</p><p>The reason MYTHBUSTERS censored it is because MYTHBUSTERS did not want to provide free advertisement for Jawbreakers.  It was totally their call.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The US , where you ca n't say fuck , show a boody or a brandname Um , what ?
You can show whatever brand name you want to show , ESPECIALLY if it is advertisement.The reason MYTHBUSTERS censored it is because MYTHBUSTERS did not want to provide free advertisement for Jawbreakers .
It was totally their call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The US, where you can't say fuck, show a boody or a brandname Um, what?
You can show whatever brand name you want to show, ESPECIALLY if it is advertisement.The reason MYTHBUSTERS censored it is because MYTHBUSTERS did not want to provide free advertisement for Jawbreakers.
It was totally their call.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662321</id>
	<title>Brits are evil</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247343360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Those faggots can go shove it. Down with the British! Down with the Queen!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those faggots can go shove it .
Down with the British !
Down with the Queen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those faggots can go shove it.
Down with the British!
Down with the Queen!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664085</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>VocationalZero</author>
	<datestamp>1247314200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> 1: You're not allowed to harass people, even if you do so by speaking.</p> </div><p>If this is true, why are many local and national KKK and Neo Nazi groups allowed to continue their activities? Even their existence is a slap in the face to the respective groups they directly insult.</p><p>If you mean harass a specific person and not a group, then how does distributing pamphlets and a website achieve this, aside from annoy most every one they come into contact with? I don't see how those two men doing this is somehow more of an offense than when Neo Nazis do the same at their rallies.</p><p>As for "homophobic propaganda" not being protected clearly you have not seen our GOP ad campaign here in Texas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : You 're not allowed to harass people , even if you do so by speaking .
If this is true , why are many local and national KKK and Neo Nazi groups allowed to continue their activities ?
Even their existence is a slap in the face to the respective groups they directly insult.If you mean harass a specific person and not a group , then how does distributing pamphlets and a website achieve this , aside from annoy most every one they come into contact with ?
I do n't see how those two men doing this is somehow more of an offense than when Neo Nazis do the same at their rallies.As for " homophobic propaganda " not being protected clearly you have not seen our GOP ad campaign here in Texas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 1: You're not allowed to harass people, even if you do so by speaking.
If this is true, why are many local and national KKK and Neo Nazi groups allowed to continue their activities?
Even their existence is a slap in the face to the respective groups they directly insult.If you mean harass a specific person and not a group, then how does distributing pamphlets and a website achieve this, aside from annoy most every one they come into contact with?
I don't see how those two men doing this is somehow more of an offense than when Neo Nazis do the same at their rallies.As for "homophobic propaganda" not being protected clearly you have not seen our GOP ad campaign here in Texas.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662947</id>
	<title>Re:There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" any mo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247305080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... It's only a matter of time before the USA starts prosecuting American citizens for smoking dope and visiting prostitutes in Amsterdam...<br>&gt;</p><p>Since when are Americans busted for visiting prostitutes ? Read "Mayflower Madam" and check the stats (though published in 1986, I doubt much has changed since then.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; ... It 's only a matter of time before the USA starts prosecuting American citizens for smoking dope and visiting prostitutes in Amsterdam... &gt; Since when are Americans busted for visiting prostitutes ?
Read " Mayflower Madam " and check the stats ( though published in 1986 , I doubt much has changed since then .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; ... It's only a matter of time before the USA starts prosecuting American citizens for smoking dope and visiting prostitutes in Amsterdam...&gt;Since when are Americans busted for visiting prostitutes ?
Read "Mayflower Madam" and check the stats (though published in 1986, I doubt much has changed since then.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662391</id>
	<title>Re:There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" any mo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247343900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What they did, they did in the UK. They then fled and attempted to request asylum, which was denied. One of two things happened after that, both legal. Either their priflege of being in the US was revoked and they were deported, or the UK voiced their claim on them and they were extradited per US/UK agreements.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Just because they put their works on a server in the US does not change the fact they were created in the UK. They UK can use this to say the crime occurred in their jurisdiction. They did what they did in the UK and it is illegal there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What they did , they did in the UK .
They then fled and attempted to request asylum , which was denied .
One of two things happened after that , both legal .
Either their priflege of being in the US was revoked and they were deported , or the UK voiced their claim on them and they were extradited per US/UK agreements .
  Just because they put their works on a server in the US does not change the fact they were created in the UK .
They UK can use this to say the crime occurred in their jurisdiction .
They did what they did in the UK and it is illegal there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they did, they did in the UK.
They then fled and attempted to request asylum, which was denied.
One of two things happened after that, both legal.
Either their priflege of being in the US was revoked and they were deported, or the UK voiced their claim on them and they were extradited per US/UK agreements.
  Just because they put their works on a server in the US does not change the fact they were created in the UK.
They UK can use this to say the crime occurred in their jurisdiction.
They did what they did in the UK and it is illegal there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28668125</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247421180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is the definition of harrasment that concerns me.<br>Is expressing an opinion harassment, or does that harssment need to be targetted toward an individual.<br>Eg. I don't think a gay lifestyle is right, but I certainly don't hate them for it and wouldn't condone any specific action.<br>If someone doesn't like my religion, then that's their opinion, but if they said hunt me down and kill me because of my religion, then that would be harassment.</p></div><p>No, that would be murder.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the definition of harrasment that concerns me.Is expressing an opinion harassment , or does that harssment need to be targetted toward an individual.Eg .
I do n't think a gay lifestyle is right , but I certainly do n't hate them for it and would n't condone any specific action.If someone does n't like my religion , then that 's their opinion , but if they said hunt me down and kill me because of my religion , then that would be harassment.No , that would be murder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the definition of harrasment that concerns me.Is expressing an opinion harassment, or does that harssment need to be targetted toward an individual.Eg.
I don't think a gay lifestyle is right, but I certainly don't hate them for it and wouldn't condone any specific action.If someone doesn't like my religion, then that's their opinion, but if they said hunt me down and kill me because of my religion, then that would be harassment.No, that would be murder.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663023</id>
	<title>Re:What do they hope to accomplish?</title>
	<author>mvdwege</author>
	<datestamp>1247305560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p><tt>[...] it's like internet trolling - it just gets people flustered and angry, and they do it for 'teh lulz'. It's pathetic. Nothing changes; nobody is going to be swayed by their infantile invective, [...]</tt></p></div></blockquote><p>Tell that to the Pakistani shopkeeper who gets a Molotov cocktail through his window.</p><p>
Mart</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] it 's like internet trolling - it just gets people flustered and angry , and they do it for 'teh lulz' .
It 's pathetic .
Nothing changes ; nobody is going to be swayed by their infantile invective , [ ... ] Tell that to the Pakistani shopkeeper who gets a Molotov cocktail through his window .
Mart</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...] it's like internet trolling - it just gets people flustered and angry, and they do it for 'teh lulz'.
It's pathetic.
Nothing changes; nobody is going to be swayed by their infantile invective, [...]Tell that to the Pakistani shopkeeper who gets a Molotov cocktail through his window.
Mart
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28673471</id>
	<title>thought-crime</title>
	<author>nomad-9</author>
	<datestamp>1247475780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If all these fading democracies have found to fight racism, is to throw people in jail for their opinions, I'd say there is little possibility of that being effective.

If anything, thought-crime turns those people into Free Speech martyrs. Not really a good idea.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If all these fading democracies have found to fight racism , is to throw people in jail for their opinions , I 'd say there is little possibility of that being effective .
If anything , thought-crime turns those people into Free Speech martyrs .
Not really a good idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all these fading democracies have found to fight racism, is to throw people in jail for their opinions, I'd say there is little possibility of that being effective.
If anything, thought-crime turns those people into Free Speech martyrs.
Not really a good idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665495</id>
	<title>Re:assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247335380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I presume you're referring to the Pentateuch, and specifically to the laws given for the nation of Israel after the exodus from Egypt. Yes, the laws, including crimes and penalties (many of which seem harsh) and even ordained wars of extinction (aka genocide) against certain enemies, are written into the record in their entirety, along with some census records and genealogies; that's what you get with chronicles. Just because blockquote tags weren't invented in Moses's day doesn't mean any sentence, paragraph, or even chapter can be properly read as an imperative.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I presume you 're referring to the Pentateuch , and specifically to the laws given for the nation of Israel after the exodus from Egypt .
Yes , the laws , including crimes and penalties ( many of which seem harsh ) and even ordained wars of extinction ( aka genocide ) against certain enemies , are written into the record in their entirety , along with some census records and genealogies ; that 's what you get with chronicles .
Just because blockquote tags were n't invented in Moses 's day does n't mean any sentence , paragraph , or even chapter can be properly read as an imperative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I presume you're referring to the Pentateuch, and specifically to the laws given for the nation of Israel after the exodus from Egypt.
Yes, the laws, including crimes and penalties (many of which seem harsh) and even ordained wars of extinction (aka genocide) against certain enemies, are written into the record in their entirety, along with some census records and genealogies; that's what you get with chronicles.
Just because blockquote tags weren't invented in Moses's day doesn't mean any sentence, paragraph, or even chapter can be properly read as an imperative.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663643</id>
	<title>Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.</title>
	<author>jbdigriz</author>
	<datestamp>1247310000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's dispense with the "shouting fire" strawman for once and for all. 1st, some context. Justice Holmes opinion on *falsely* shouting fire in a crowded theater was intended as an example of dangerous speech which serves no [presumed, see the theater scene in "Torn Curtain" for possible counter scenario] useful purpose. Bear in mind Holmes was writing a majority opinion *against* a pampleteer, Schenk, who was dstributing flyers against the draft during WW1. While you may or may not consider Schenk to be a scurrilous traitor, this does illuminate Holmes's motivation here, as he was using the "fire" example as a direct comparison to Schenk's speech. Subseqently, this decision was overturned, as well.</p><p>In the real world, anyone fool enough to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater for no good reason, if he weren't torn limb from limb by the mob, would be subject to all kinds of tort and criminal actions, from reckless endangerment to  involuntary manslaughter, or even murder. Even if you want to argue that the speech should, somehow, be anticipated and proscribed by fiat, you'd still have to establish malicious or criminal intent, for which you have all kinds of existing law, with far more fitting penalties, as I just mentioned.</p><p>This old canard has no real bearing whatsoever on 1st amendment debates. It should have been retired long ago, but it has an emotional appeal which speech stiflers just can't get enough of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's dispense with the " shouting fire " strawman for once and for all .
1st , some context .
Justice Holmes opinion on * falsely * shouting fire in a crowded theater was intended as an example of dangerous speech which serves no [ presumed , see the theater scene in " Torn Curtain " for possible counter scenario ] useful purpose .
Bear in mind Holmes was writing a majority opinion * against * a pampleteer , Schenk , who was dstributing flyers against the draft during WW1 .
While you may or may not consider Schenk to be a scurrilous traitor , this does illuminate Holmes 's motivation here , as he was using the " fire " example as a direct comparison to Schenk 's speech .
Subseqently , this decision was overturned , as well.In the real world , anyone fool enough to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater for no good reason , if he were n't torn limb from limb by the mob , would be subject to all kinds of tort and criminal actions , from reckless endangerment to involuntary manslaughter , or even murder .
Even if you want to argue that the speech should , somehow , be anticipated and proscribed by fiat , you 'd still have to establish malicious or criminal intent , for which you have all kinds of existing law , with far more fitting penalties , as I just mentioned.This old canard has no real bearing whatsoever on 1st amendment debates .
It should have been retired long ago , but it has an emotional appeal which speech stiflers just ca n't get enough of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's dispense with the "shouting fire" strawman for once and for all.
1st, some context.
Justice Holmes opinion on *falsely* shouting fire in a crowded theater was intended as an example of dangerous speech which serves no [presumed, see the theater scene in "Torn Curtain" for possible counter scenario] useful purpose.
Bear in mind Holmes was writing a majority opinion *against* a pampleteer, Schenk, who was dstributing flyers against the draft during WW1.
While you may or may not consider Schenk to be a scurrilous traitor, this does illuminate Holmes's motivation here, as he was using the "fire" example as a direct comparison to Schenk's speech.
Subseqently, this decision was overturned, as well.In the real world, anyone fool enough to falsely shout fire in a crowded theater for no good reason, if he weren't torn limb from limb by the mob, would be subject to all kinds of tort and criminal actions, from reckless endangerment to  involuntary manslaughter, or even murder.
Even if you want to argue that the speech should, somehow, be anticipated and proscribed by fiat, you'd still have to establish malicious or criminal intent, for which you have all kinds of existing law, with far more fitting penalties, as I just mentioned.This old canard has no real bearing whatsoever on 1st amendment debates.
It should have been retired long ago, but it has an emotional appeal which speech stiflers just can't get enough of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662447</id>
	<title>Re:No Asylum?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247344140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because not even the USA would act in such a way to piss off one of their few remaining allies, even if they don't view the UK so much as a partner as a patsy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because not even the USA would act in such a way to piss off one of their few remaining allies , even if they do n't view the UK so much as a partner as a patsy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because not even the USA would act in such a way to piss off one of their few remaining allies, even if they don't view the UK so much as a partner as a patsy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28667033</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>SLi</author>
	<datestamp>1247410260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might want to consider that the US occupiers in Germany put very tight limits on Nazi propaganda after World War II. Actually I believe most of the anti-Nazi legislation there was implemented pretty much by a decree of the Allies. Speaking of hypocrisy... Naah, actually just na&#195;vete of the current US population, thinking that their model on freedom of speech is absolutely the best one, when they like to ban free speech themselves when it's convenient<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might want to consider that the US occupiers in Germany put very tight limits on Nazi propaganda after World War II .
Actually I believe most of the anti-Nazi legislation there was implemented pretty much by a decree of the Allies .
Speaking of hypocrisy... Naah , actually just na   vete of the current US population , thinking that their model on freedom of speech is absolutely the best one , when they like to ban free speech themselves when it 's convenient : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might want to consider that the US occupiers in Germany put very tight limits on Nazi propaganda after World War II.
Actually I believe most of the anti-Nazi legislation there was implemented pretty much by a decree of the Allies.
Speaking of hypocrisy... Naah, actually just naÃvete of the current US population, thinking that their model on freedom of speech is absolutely the best one, when they like to ban free speech themselves when it's convenient :-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663461</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665331</id>
	<title>Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK</title>
	<author>db32</author>
	<datestamp>1247332500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The whole freedom of speech business is a double edged sword.  The real trouble is that the people that really need to be exercising it tend not to, and the loud mouthed ignorant asshats that would do the world a favor by shutting the hell up permanently exercise it quite frequently.  The worst part is that the most intelligent people are left beating their heads against the wall listening to the asshats and trapped in the mental anguish of knowing how important freedom of speech is and the horrors that it unleashes.<br> <br>
Almost every major defense of freedom of speech lately has been defending stupid assholes use of it because if you don't defend it you will lose it.  The vast majority of people that have used in a professional manner, the way it was intended, to challenge the government have largely been left alone in terms of oppression and persecution.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole freedom of speech business is a double edged sword .
The real trouble is that the people that really need to be exercising it tend not to , and the loud mouthed ignorant asshats that would do the world a favor by shutting the hell up permanently exercise it quite frequently .
The worst part is that the most intelligent people are left beating their heads against the wall listening to the asshats and trapped in the mental anguish of knowing how important freedom of speech is and the horrors that it unleashes .
Almost every major defense of freedom of speech lately has been defending stupid assholes use of it because if you do n't defend it you will lose it .
The vast majority of people that have used in a professional manner , the way it was intended , to challenge the government have largely been left alone in terms of oppression and persecution .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole freedom of speech business is a double edged sword.
The real trouble is that the people that really need to be exercising it tend not to, and the loud mouthed ignorant asshats that would do the world a favor by shutting the hell up permanently exercise it quite frequently.
The worst part is that the most intelligent people are left beating their heads against the wall listening to the asshats and trapped in the mental anguish of knowing how important freedom of speech is and the horrors that it unleashes.
Almost every major defense of freedom of speech lately has been defending stupid assholes use of it because if you don't defend it you will lose it.
The vast majority of people that have used in a professional manner, the way it was intended, to challenge the government have largely been left alone in terms of oppression and persecution.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662649</id>
	<title>reminds me of a book</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1247345640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Who-Controls-Internet-Illusions-Borderless/dp/0195152662" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Who-Controls-Internet-Illusions-Borderless/dp/0195152662</a> [amazon.com] <br> <br>
it's an interesting read. it was assigned in a freshman seminar i took. talked about how the illusions people had that law was unenforceable on the internet was shattered in its early days.<br> <br>

still, i think the only reason the US didn't grant them asylum was because they didn't want a scandal with the UK. if those people were from, say, lebanon, i'm pretty sure the story would've had a different ending..</htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.amazon.com/Who-Controls-Internet-Illusions-Borderless/dp/0195152662 [ amazon.com ] it 's an interesting read .
it was assigned in a freshman seminar i took .
talked about how the illusions people had that law was unenforceable on the internet was shattered in its early days .
still , i think the only reason the US did n't grant them asylum was because they did n't want a scandal with the UK .
if those people were from , say , lebanon , i 'm pretty sure the story would 've had a different ending. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.amazon.com/Who-Controls-Internet-Illusions-Borderless/dp/0195152662 [amazon.com]  
it's an interesting read.
it was assigned in a freshman seminar i took.
talked about how the illusions people had that law was unenforceable on the internet was shattered in its early days.
still, i think the only reason the US didn't grant them asylum was because they didn't want a scandal with the UK.
if those people were from, say, lebanon, i'm pretty sure the story would've had a different ending..</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662795</id>
	<title>Re:There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" any mo</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1247303640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...you're liable for it worldwide...</i></p><p>If that's going to the case, then indeed we do need a single worldwide standard... Otherwise we are all subject to the most radical puritans that happen to have an army and a flag.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...you 're liable for it worldwide...If that 's going to the case , then indeed we do need a single worldwide standard... Otherwise we are all subject to the most radical puritans that happen to have an army and a flag .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...you're liable for it worldwide...If that's going to the case, then indeed we do need a single worldwide standard... Otherwise we are all subject to the most radical puritans that happen to have an army and a flag.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662739</id>
	<title>Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.</title>
	<author>Psyborgue</author>
	<datestamp>1247303160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not sympathy for these losers.  I did not read and do not care what they said.  I care that one day, on the same basis, I might be judged similarly (though I thank my stars I'm an American).</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not sympathy for these losers .
I did not read and do not care what they said .
I care that one day , on the same basis , I might be judged similarly ( though I thank my stars I 'm an American ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not sympathy for these losers.
I did not read and do not care what they said.
I care that one day, on the same basis, I might be judged similarly (though I thank my stars I'm an American).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663161</id>
	<title>Re:!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>thaylin</author>
	<datestamp>1247306640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I am going to kill you!
Waits for a moment
Waits for a moment

Hmm nothing is happening..
You can say you are going to kill someone as long as you dont have the means and intention of really killing someone. In addition you are making some terrible logic leaps that just by me saying to my buddy that I hate you and I am going to kill you that I am organizing and inciting him to kill you.

In addition we were raised, atleast anyone I know, with the old proverb that "sticks and stones will break your bones but words will NEVER harm you", and that is true, works can not harm you unless YOU let them harm you, at that point it becomes your fault, not the person saying those words, otherwise we would have bullies in schools who just call you fat and stupid locked up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I am going to kill you !
Waits for a moment Waits for a moment Hmm nothing is happening. . You can say you are going to kill someone as long as you dont have the means and intention of really killing someone .
In addition you are making some terrible logic leaps that just by me saying to my buddy that I hate you and I am going to kill you that I am organizing and inciting him to kill you .
In addition we were raised , atleast anyone I know , with the old proverb that " sticks and stones will break your bones but words will NEVER harm you " , and that is true , works can not harm you unless YOU let them harm you , at that point it becomes your fault , not the person saying those words , otherwise we would have bullies in schools who just call you fat and stupid locked up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am going to kill you!
Waits for a moment
Waits for a moment

Hmm nothing is happening..
You can say you are going to kill someone as long as you dont have the means and intention of really killing someone.
In addition you are making some terrible logic leaps that just by me saying to my buddy that I hate you and I am going to kill you that I am organizing and inciting him to kill you.
In addition we were raised, atleast anyone I know, with the old proverb that "sticks and stones will break your bones but words will NEVER harm you", and that is true, works can not harm you unless YOU let them harm you, at that point it becomes your fault, not the person saying those words, otherwise we would have bullies in schools who just call you fat and stupid locked up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663931</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid they meet Annonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247312760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm 12 years old and what is this?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm 12 years old and what is this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm 12 years old and what is this?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662541</id>
	<title>Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK</title>
	<author>D-Cypell</author>
	<datestamp>1247344800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no free speech anywhere, just people that harp on that they have it and others dont.</p><p>There are certainly things you could say in the US that would mean that you would end up in jail. It might be for some other reason, but if you started publically praising the 9/11 hijackers (for example), you can expect the authorities to start looking into your business pretty closely. You had better be whiter than white. Most likely you would end up incarcerated (assuming you lived long enough to get there), for some other thing, and it is possible that the 'other thing' could be fabricated. None of this would have happened if you had kept your mouth shut. So in truth no real 'free speech'.</p><p>The difference between so called 'free countries' and oppressive ones, is how your rights scale on the basis of you not being an idiot in how you decide to use them. In free countries it is possible to make pretty much any point, and stay free of any serious persecution if you do it the right way, in the right context.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no free speech anywhere , just people that harp on that they have it and others dont.There are certainly things you could say in the US that would mean that you would end up in jail .
It might be for some other reason , but if you started publically praising the 9/11 hijackers ( for example ) , you can expect the authorities to start looking into your business pretty closely .
You had better be whiter than white .
Most likely you would end up incarcerated ( assuming you lived long enough to get there ) , for some other thing , and it is possible that the 'other thing ' could be fabricated .
None of this would have happened if you had kept your mouth shut .
So in truth no real 'free speech'.The difference between so called 'free countries ' and oppressive ones , is how your rights scale on the basis of you not being an idiot in how you decide to use them .
In free countries it is possible to make pretty much any point , and stay free of any serious persecution if you do it the right way , in the right context .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no free speech anywhere, just people that harp on that they have it and others dont.There are certainly things you could say in the US that would mean that you would end up in jail.
It might be for some other reason, but if you started publically praising the 9/11 hijackers (for example), you can expect the authorities to start looking into your business pretty closely.
You had better be whiter than white.
Most likely you would end up incarcerated (assuming you lived long enough to get there), for some other thing, and it is possible that the 'other thing' could be fabricated.
None of this would have happened if you had kept your mouth shut.
So in truth no real 'free speech'.The difference between so called 'free countries' and oppressive ones, is how your rights scale on the basis of you not being an idiot in how you decide to use them.
In free countries it is possible to make pretty much any point, and stay free of any serious persecution if you do it the right way, in the right context.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057</id>
	<title>Point of Origin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247341740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>       Here we go again! If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?  Are they claiming that because English addresses received the materials that English laws are in play?  Or is this another treaty driven action in an American court? And England is a hoot compared to France. France really does want to reach out and control the world.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we go again !
If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction ?
Are they claiming that because English addresses received the materials that English laws are in play ?
Or is this another treaty driven action in an American court ?
And England is a hoot compared to France .
France really does want to reach out and control the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>       Here we go again!
If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?
Are they claiming that because English addresses received the materials that English laws are in play?
Or is this another treaty driven action in an American court?
And England is a hoot compared to France.
France really does want to reach out and control the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662375</id>
	<title>Can you read?</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1247343780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They commited the crime in the UK, then fled AFTERWARDS to the US.
</p><p>So you entire rant, which does have a point, becomes silly because it has nothing to do with the facts in this case.
</p><p>And the above practice is pretty good else places like the netherlands would be flooded with american asylum seekers convicted for smoking pot.
</p><p>We got enough of them from the rest of the continent thank you very much. Americans are only welcome for a short stay to spend what little money you got left and then bugger OFF! We don't need both french and american drugs tourists. A small country cannot stand so much arrogance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They commited the crime in the UK , then fled AFTERWARDS to the US .
So you entire rant , which does have a point , becomes silly because it has nothing to do with the facts in this case .
And the above practice is pretty good else places like the netherlands would be flooded with american asylum seekers convicted for smoking pot .
We got enough of them from the rest of the continent thank you very much .
Americans are only welcome for a short stay to spend what little money you got left and then bugger OFF !
We do n't need both french and american drugs tourists .
A small country can not stand so much arrogance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They commited the crime in the UK, then fled AFTERWARDS to the US.
So you entire rant, which does have a point, becomes silly because it has nothing to do with the facts in this case.
And the above practice is pretty good else places like the netherlands would be flooded with american asylum seekers convicted for smoking pot.
We got enough of them from the rest of the continent thank you very much.
Americans are only welcome for a short stay to spend what little money you got left and then bugger OFF!
We don't need both french and american drugs tourists.
A small country cannot stand so much arrogance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28667065</id>
	<title>Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK</title>
	<author>idlemachine</author>
	<datestamp>1247410680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I don't know about the UK but here in the US we acknowledge that actions committed in other countries fall under the laws of that country.</p></div><p>
Oh, really?
</p><p>
So the US would never <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/05/06/1178390182639.html" title="smh.com.au">extradite a British citizen from their legal residence in Australia for criminal acts that weren't performed on American soil</a> [smh.com.au]?
</p><p>
And I'm guessing you believe the US would never declare that it could <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us\_and\_americas/article2982640.ece" title="timesonline.co.uk">kidnap foreign citizens if they were unable to extradite them</a> [timesonline.co.uk] because the country in which they resided didn't view their actions as extraditable offences?
</p><p>
Unfortunately, those of us who live outside the US can't afford to be so delusional.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the UK but here in the US we acknowledge that actions committed in other countries fall under the laws of that country .
Oh , really ?
So the US would never extradite a British citizen from their legal residence in Australia for criminal acts that were n't performed on American soil [ smh.com.au ] ?
And I 'm guessing you believe the US would never declare that it could kidnap foreign citizens if they were unable to extradite them [ timesonline.co.uk ] because the country in which they resided did n't view their actions as extraditable offences ?
Unfortunately , those of us who live outside the US ca n't afford to be so delusional .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the UK but here in the US we acknowledge that actions committed in other countries fall under the laws of that country.
Oh, really?
So the US would never extradite a British citizen from their legal residence in Australia for criminal acts that weren't performed on American soil [smh.com.au]?
And I'm guessing you believe the US would never declare that it could kidnap foreign citizens if they were unable to extradite them [timesonline.co.uk] because the country in which they resided didn't view their actions as extraditable offences?
Unfortunately, those of us who live outside the US can't afford to be so delusional.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663687</id>
	<title>Re:No Asylum?</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1247310420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Britain is an ALLY. You dont shit on your allies shoes to protect THEIR citizenry. They are citizens of the UK, and they dont face any TRULY harsh penalties for the crimes they have been LAWFULLY convicted of. If the death penalty was on the table Id consider it. (i.e.mexico generally wont extradite a person if he has a real possibility of facing the death penalty.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain is an ALLY .
You dont shit on your allies shoes to protect THEIR citizenry .
They are citizens of the UK , and they dont face any TRULY harsh penalties for the crimes they have been LAWFULLY convicted of .
If the death penalty was on the table Id consider it .
( i.e.mexico generally wont extradite a person if he has a real possibility of facing the death penalty .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Britain is an ALLY.
You dont shit on your allies shoes to protect THEIR citizenry.
They are citizens of the UK, and they dont face any TRULY harsh penalties for the crimes they have been LAWFULLY convicted of.
If the death penalty was on the table Id consider it.
(i.e.mexico generally wont extradite a person if he has a real possibility of facing the death penalty.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662509</id>
	<title>Re:!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247344620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have the right to say "death to [group/country/people/religion]" or "killing abortion doctors is good".  You are responsible for your own choices if you decide to ask on my words, not me.  In <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate\_speech#United\_States" title="wikipedia.org">US law, anything is protected speech unless it is an *immediate* threat of violence</a> [wikipedia.org] (i.e. inciting a riot when you are actually in the riot).  If you want to defeat bad ideas, fight them with good ones in the open commerce of ideas.  Suppressing speech only treats the symptom and not the root cause of the problem, which is fear and misunderstanding...  something that can *only* be dealt with by open and honest dialogue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the right to say " death to [ group/country/people/religion ] " or " killing abortion doctors is good " .
You are responsible for your own choices if you decide to ask on my words , not me .
In US law , anything is protected speech unless it is an * immediate * threat of violence [ wikipedia.org ] ( i.e .
inciting a riot when you are actually in the riot ) .
If you want to defeat bad ideas , fight them with good ones in the open commerce of ideas .
Suppressing speech only treats the symptom and not the root cause of the problem , which is fear and misunderstanding... something that can * only * be dealt with by open and honest dialogue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the right to say "death to [group/country/people/religion]" or "killing abortion doctors is good".
You are responsible for your own choices if you decide to ask on my words, not me.
In US law, anything is protected speech unless it is an *immediate* threat of violence [wikipedia.org] (i.e.
inciting a riot when you are actually in the riot).
If you want to defeat bad ideas, fight them with good ones in the open commerce of ideas.
Suppressing speech only treats the symptom and not the root cause of the problem, which is fear and misunderstanding...  something that can *only* be dealt with by open and honest dialogue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663457</id>
	<title>The moon is made of green cheese</title>
	<author>extract</author>
	<datestamp>1247308680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The two men were jailed for talking about the "Holohoax". No more truth to that than to tell that the moon is made of green cheese. Yet I haven't heard of anyone going to jail for spreading lies about the moon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The two men were jailed for talking about the " Holohoax " .
No more truth to that than to tell that the moon is made of green cheese .
Yet I have n't heard of anyone going to jail for spreading lies about the moon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The two men were jailed for talking about the "Holohoax".
No more truth to that than to tell that the moon is made of green cheese.
Yet I haven't heard of anyone going to jail for spreading lies about the moon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662575</id>
	<title>Re:!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>Psyborgue</author>
	<datestamp>1247345100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How do you define "words that incite hatred".  How do you enforce that, exactly?  Should it be illegal for anybody to say a bad word lest it cause offense?...  because once you start down that track, that's where it leads.  If I'm not mistaken, in the UK there were/are several "politeness" laws on the books.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How do you define " words that incite hatred " .
How do you enforce that , exactly ?
Should it be illegal for anybody to say a bad word lest it cause offense ? .. .
because once you start down that track , that 's where it leads .
If I 'm not mistaken , in the UK there were/are several " politeness " laws on the books .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How do you define "words that incite hatred".
How do you enforce that, exactly?
Should it be illegal for anybody to say a bad word lest it cause offense?...
because once you start down that track, that's where it leads.
If I'm not mistaken, in the UK there were/are several "politeness" laws on the books.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664949</id>
	<title>Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1247326260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, given that UK law is based on common law, that rather goes without saying. It doesn't mean anything.</p><p>If you want to compare UK vs US regarding freedom of speech, the only meaningful question is what law is enforced, not whether it's based on a system of promises (which can be overridden when the government chooses) or not.</p><p>e.g. Say you're an extremist muslim cleric condoning the 9/11 attacks - will this get you arrested in the UK or US? I'd say that under Bush at least there's a fair chance you'd gave gotten a visit from the men in black, while in the UK more likely Tony Blair bringing you a cup of tea.</p><p>Comparing the "promises" of the UK vs US legal system, I'd much rather have the reality of haebus corpus in the UK vs the reality of potentially being held indefinitely in the US regardless of what the constitution "promises". Of course the UK has gone horribly  soft on crime in recent years, which isn't a good thing either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , given that UK law is based on common law , that rather goes without saying .
It does n't mean anything.If you want to compare UK vs US regarding freedom of speech , the only meaningful question is what law is enforced , not whether it 's based on a system of promises ( which can be overridden when the government chooses ) or not.e.g .
Say you 're an extremist muslim cleric condoning the 9/11 attacks - will this get you arrested in the UK or US ?
I 'd say that under Bush at least there 's a fair chance you 'd gave gotten a visit from the men in black , while in the UK more likely Tony Blair bringing you a cup of tea.Comparing the " promises " of the UK vs US legal system , I 'd much rather have the reality of haebus corpus in the UK vs the reality of potentially being held indefinitely in the US regardless of what the constitution " promises " .
Of course the UK has gone horribly soft on crime in recent years , which is n't a good thing either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, given that UK law is based on common law, that rather goes without saying.
It doesn't mean anything.If you want to compare UK vs US regarding freedom of speech, the only meaningful question is what law is enforced, not whether it's based on a system of promises (which can be overridden when the government chooses) or not.e.g.
Say you're an extremist muslim cleric condoning the 9/11 attacks - will this get you arrested in the UK or US?
I'd say that under Bush at least there's a fair chance you'd gave gotten a visit from the men in black, while in the UK more likely Tony Blair bringing you a cup of tea.Comparing the "promises" of the UK vs US legal system, I'd much rather have the reality of haebus corpus in the UK vs the reality of potentially being held indefinitely in the US regardless of what the constitution "promises".
Of course the UK has gone horribly  soft on crime in recent years, which isn't a good thing either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662473</id>
	<title>GNAA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247344320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://www.gnaa.us/" title="www.gnaa.us" rel="nofollow">Gay Nigger Association of America</a> [www.gnaa.us] will be furious!</p><p>And believe me, you don't want to have those guys on your ass!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Gay Nigger Association of America [ www.gnaa.us ] will be furious ! And believe me , you do n't want to have those guys on your ass !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Gay Nigger Association of America [www.gnaa.us] will be furious!And believe me, you don't want to have those guys on your ass!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663409</id>
	<title>Re:PassThe Bromide, Please</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247308380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I do not think parent was alluding to libel and slander, which *is* against the law. But rather derisive speech towards a certain ethnic group, which is legal in the US, but not Great Britain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do not think parent was alluding to libel and slander , which * is * against the law .
But rather derisive speech towards a certain ethnic group , which is legal in the US , but not Great Britain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do not think parent was alluding to libel and slander, which *is* against the law.
But rather derisive speech towards a certain ethnic group, which is legal in the US, but not Great Britain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662977</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663533</id>
	<title>jurisdiction</title>
	<author>lordholm</author>
	<datestamp>1247309280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. British man hacks into US web-servers, while being on British soil. US demands extradition. UK thinks crime falls under US jurisdiction.</p><p>2. British man posts hate messages on US web server, while being on British soil. UK thinks crime falls under UK jurisdiction.</p><p>How convenient, just select the appropriate jurisdiction based on whatever suits the government at the moment.</p><p>The two things here does not compute, but unfortunately, that is exactly how the UK works at the moment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
British man hacks into US web-servers , while being on British soil .
US demands extradition .
UK thinks crime falls under US jurisdiction.2 .
British man posts hate messages on US web server , while being on British soil .
UK thinks crime falls under UK jurisdiction.How convenient , just select the appropriate jurisdiction based on whatever suits the government at the moment.The two things here does not compute , but unfortunately , that is exactly how the UK works at the moment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
British man hacks into US web-servers, while being on British soil.
US demands extradition.
UK thinks crime falls under US jurisdiction.2.
British man posts hate messages on US web server, while being on British soil.
UK thinks crime falls under UK jurisdiction.How convenient, just select the appropriate jurisdiction based on whatever suits the government at the moment.The two things here does not compute, but unfortunately, that is exactly how the UK works at the moment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662337</id>
	<title>Re:No Asylum?</title>
	<author>liquidsunshine</author>
	<datestamp>1247343480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I completely agree, but I'd be willing to guess that the reasoning has to do with treaties and/or our relationship with Britain.  Offering asylum would imply that we think they are a "bad" nation with unjust laws (which they seem to be), and would hurt our relationship with them.

Basically, world governments are a bunch of middle schoolers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I completely agree , but I 'd be willing to guess that the reasoning has to do with treaties and/or our relationship with Britain .
Offering asylum would imply that we think they are a " bad " nation with unjust laws ( which they seem to be ) , and would hurt our relationship with them .
Basically , world governments are a bunch of middle schoolers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I completely agree, but I'd be willing to guess that the reasoning has to do with treaties and/or our relationship with Britain.
Offering asylum would imply that we think they are a "bad" nation with unjust laws (which they seem to be), and would hurt our relationship with them.
Basically, world governments are a bunch of middle schoolers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665405</id>
	<title>Re:What do they hope to accomplish?</title>
	<author>shutdown -p now</author>
	<datestamp>1247333640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Nothing changes; nobody is going to be swayed by their infantile invective, they aren't ever going to have the people they dislike evicted from their country.</p></div><p>Are you so sure about that? From what I can see, the British National Party is gaining ground in UK, very slowly but steadily.</p><p><div class="quote"><p> Even if they did, would it really make their life any better?</p></div><p>Probably not, but what matters is that they believe that it will.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The common thread amongst racists that I've found is that they invariably want someone to blame for the state of their own lives, and they choose someone who is obviously different from them, because it's easy. These guys aren't smart, capable people; they're losers.</p></div><p>What you describe is a typical skinhead or otherwise the "muscle" of the various neo-Nazi movements. However, it would be wrong to say that they don't have any smart people higher up in the ranks. I've met some with very sharp minds.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nothing changes ; nobody is going to be swayed by their infantile invective , they are n't ever going to have the people they dislike evicted from their country.Are you so sure about that ?
From what I can see , the British National Party is gaining ground in UK , very slowly but steadily .
Even if they did , would it really make their life any better ? Probably not , but what matters is that they believe that it will.The common thread amongst racists that I 've found is that they invariably want someone to blame for the state of their own lives , and they choose someone who is obviously different from them , because it 's easy .
These guys are n't smart , capable people ; they 're losers.What you describe is a typical skinhead or otherwise the " muscle " of the various neo-Nazi movements .
However , it would be wrong to say that they do n't have any smart people higher up in the ranks .
I 've met some with very sharp minds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nothing changes; nobody is going to be swayed by their infantile invective, they aren't ever going to have the people they dislike evicted from their country.Are you so sure about that?
From what I can see, the British National Party is gaining ground in UK, very slowly but steadily.
Even if they did, would it really make their life any better?Probably not, but what matters is that they believe that it will.The common thread amongst racists that I've found is that they invariably want someone to blame for the state of their own lives, and they choose someone who is obviously different from them, because it's easy.
These guys aren't smart, capable people; they're losers.What you describe is a typical skinhead or otherwise the "muscle" of the various neo-Nazi movements.
However, it would be wrong to say that they don't have any smart people higher up in the ranks.
I've met some with very sharp minds.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662247</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently Free Speech rights do not cover Hate</title>
	<author>patro</author>
	<datestamp>1247342940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also track down the "Anonymous" group for hate speech against Scientologists, etc.</p></div><p>Well, how about tracking down scientologists for hate speech against "Anonymous" then?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also track down the " Anonymous " group for hate speech against Scientologists , etc.Well , how about tracking down scientologists for hate speech against " Anonymous " then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also track down the "Anonymous" group for hate speech against Scientologists, etc.Well, how about tracking down scientologists for hate speech against "Anonymous" then?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663013</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>oneirophrenos</author>
	<datestamp>1247305560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is probably the most insightful post in the discussion, and it got modded Troll. As far as I'm concerned, you hit the nail on the head. As members of a society we necessarily waive certain freedoms so that others can have theirs. We can't kill, fuck or steal whomever/whatever we want. We should be free to do what we please, so long as we do not infringe on other people's rights to do the same. Hate speech isn't an irrevocable right, because it compromises the target's right to safety. Analogously, I can't punch a person in the face or take their wallet without expecting repercussions from the rest of the society. In real life, there is no such thing as absolute freedom, and it is infantile to suppose so.</p><p>Go ahead, burn your points and mod me down. I got karma to burn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is probably the most insightful post in the discussion , and it got modded Troll .
As far as I 'm concerned , you hit the nail on the head .
As members of a society we necessarily waive certain freedoms so that others can have theirs .
We ca n't kill , fuck or steal whomever/whatever we want .
We should be free to do what we please , so long as we do not infringe on other people 's rights to do the same .
Hate speech is n't an irrevocable right , because it compromises the target 's right to safety .
Analogously , I ca n't punch a person in the face or take their wallet without expecting repercussions from the rest of the society .
In real life , there is no such thing as absolute freedom , and it is infantile to suppose so.Go ahead , burn your points and mod me down .
I got karma to burn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is probably the most insightful post in the discussion, and it got modded Troll.
As far as I'm concerned, you hit the nail on the head.
As members of a society we necessarily waive certain freedoms so that others can have theirs.
We can't kill, fuck or steal whomever/whatever we want.
We should be free to do what we please, so long as we do not infringe on other people's rights to do the same.
Hate speech isn't an irrevocable right, because it compromises the target's right to safety.
Analogously, I can't punch a person in the face or take their wallet without expecting repercussions from the rest of the society.
In real life, there is no such thing as absolute freedom, and it is infantile to suppose so.Go ahead, burn your points and mod me down.
I got karma to burn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662855</id>
	<title>Re:!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247304180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are so wrong. There is a big difference between saying something like "Jews are stupid" versus "Jews are stupid so you should kill them". The first is an opinion, the second is a call to action. Policing written opinions is absolutely the same as policing thoughtcrime. Saying that you can think whatever you want as long as you don't share it with anyone is like saying that its OK to be gay as long as its in the privacy of your own home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are so wrong .
There is a big difference between saying something like " Jews are stupid " versus " Jews are stupid so you should kill them " .
The first is an opinion , the second is a call to action .
Policing written opinions is absolutely the same as policing thoughtcrime .
Saying that you can think whatever you want as long as you do n't share it with anyone is like saying that its OK to be gay as long as its in the privacy of your own home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are so wrong.
There is a big difference between saying something like "Jews are stupid" versus "Jews are stupid so you should kill them".
The first is an opinion, the second is a call to action.
Policing written opinions is absolutely the same as policing thoughtcrime.
Saying that you can think whatever you want as long as you don't share it with anyone is like saying that its OK to be gay as long as its in the privacy of your own home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663983</id>
	<title>Re:Passport question for the UK folks . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247313060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After thinking about it, I'm not that surprised.</p><p>U.K.: "Here, offloading criminals and ne'er-do-wells to foreign shores worked for a few hundred years, why can't we do the same now?  But go on, 'flee' while you can!"<br>America: "ummm thanks but no thanks, we don't want you either"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After thinking about it , I 'm not that surprised.U.K .
: " Here , offloading criminals and ne'er-do-wells to foreign shores worked for a few hundred years , why ca n't we do the same now ?
But go on , 'flee ' while you can !
" America : " ummm thanks but no thanks , we do n't want you either "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After thinking about it, I'm not that surprised.U.K.
: "Here, offloading criminals and ne'er-do-wells to foreign shores worked for a few hundred years, why can't we do the same now?
But go on, 'flee' while you can!
"America: "ummm thanks but no thanks, we don't want you either"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664243</id>
	<title>Almost every single point you make is wrong</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247315880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Point for point.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This discussion will invariable get out the "free speech or nothing" nutcases who claim that all speech should be free, while they read and post on a moderated forum with an adblocker censoring the slashdot creators.</p></div><p>That's just silly. Freedom of speech is not the same thing as the right to have everyone hang onto your lips revering every single thing you say.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Americans especially have a serious amount of hypocracy[sic] in these cases.</p></div><p>Hypocrisy? At least Americans are pretty much consistent (at least compared to us) and you accuse them of hypocrisy?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Europeans tend to know that free speech does not exist and that true free speech is far to messy to allow.</p></div><p>Sure add another overgeneralisation. I'm sure all Europeans think exactly like you do to the last comma and apostrophe. *rolls eyes* Did you know by the way that a lot of people know that the world is only 6k years old? That people "know" things proves nothing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet while in holland[sic] we recently had proposal to make holocaust (not just THE holocaust but all similar events before and since) denial an actual and specific crime. At the moment it already falls under hate crime laws. Even the liberals[sic] (think left of the most left democrat/indepedent you ever witnessed) VVD who recenly[sic] proposed that hate crimes should be gotten rid off wanted the distinction between THINKING hate and inciting/causing hate.<br>The reason was simple, the poor guy who suggested it was INSTANTLY shot down by everyone.</p></div><p>You are not just oversimplifying the situation, but also misrepresenting half the Dutch people. Don't you read the papers? Public opinion was very varied, on both sides of the argument.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Not just the WW2, but the incitement to hatred that occured in Rwanda or even more recent South Africa (where there was violent against black immigrants from native blacks, I add this because you might typical assume that racial trouble in SA would be between black and white).</p></div><p>Violence isn't protected by the right to free speech.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Europe once again is a powder keg. Parties who have immigrants as part of their agenda (meaning, they don't want them) are on the rise and with the economic downturn it doesn't take a lot to get a sensation of deja-vu. No, this is not 1930 germany. There are a lot of differences with all sides involved but right now NOBODY wishes to allow someone to start spreading hate that might find a fertile breeding ground.</p></div><p>You are sensationalising. Europe isn't a powder keg, and it will only become that if we let it. For example by limiting free speech, making it impossible for people to settle their differences in the public sphere, ensuring that it will brew under the surface.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We know from history that hate speech can be a serious danger if the conditions are right.</p></div><p>The conditions aren't right. Also, you failed to mention that cases in recent history where the speech of someone caused nastiness, this was in large part because at the same time the opposition was censored.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Butt[sic] should our freedom to say what we believe be curtailed for the chance that something bad might happen?<br>I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male.</p></div><p>Right. Obviously black people can't post like you do (perhaps you are a little racist yourself), all those people shooting down religious "arguments" in the flamewars we wage here every now and then are just Christian trolls, and so on and so forth. Do you even read your own words before you hit "submit"?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>What does this group have to fear from hate speech?</p></div><p>The same thing everyone else has to fear from the whole concept if it is enshrined into law. One day something you might have said, even if true, may be deemed hate speech, and then you're in deep shit.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>They control the US.</p></div><p>Or perhaps you were going for a "Funny" moderation?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>It is easy to say hate speech should be free when it is not targetted against you. I have no problem with americans being allowed to carry heavy weapons. In america. Go right ahead, carry a machine gun to the mall. It doesn't affect me.</p></div><p>In one paragraph, we have a blatant denial of real existing hatred against white people, the Christians you mentioned yourself, nerds, etcetera, a completely gratuitous stab at what you think is wrong with US gun control, and the extremely short sighted notion that everything that happens far from your bed is not important.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But if you are black or a muslim or a jew or a woman or any other group that is the subject of hate groups then it becomes a different story.</p></div><p>No it doesn't.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The murders in holland[sic] on Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn fall under hate crimes. People spoke nasty words about them, saying it would be better if they were gone and someone listened. Wait until YOU are the one under a death treath before you say free speech should be totally unrestricted.</p></div><p>Murder is already illegal. As is premiditation for murder. This is not a free speech issue. (Of course, the artistic and political life of Van Gogh and Fortuyn themselves pretty much are but you of course didn't mention that story because it favours free speech.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I am fairly willing to bet that the majority of free speech spouters on slashdot would change their tune VERY quickly if they were the subject of a hate attack.</p></div><p>As an atheist, I'm a constant target of hate attacks. Let them come, I'm ready for them.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Free speech is important, but being able to say anything at all without any restrictions will be abused.</p></div><p>Not more so than restrictive laws.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Almost everything we do is restricted. From travel (I am free to travel across the globe but only with the proper papers), to reproduction (I can only do it with women who agree) our lives are regulared. Why should speech be any different?</p></div><p>Because speech is different. We need it to enforce public accountability, we need it to spread ideas, to combat unreason. And censorship laws have always proven to be to the advantage of overarching governments, religious ignorance, and crooks. (For an example of the latter, search for Simon Singh.)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And americans,[sic] before you try to correct me, how come that on a recent mythbusters I saw they had SO much censorship going on that it took up 50\% if the screen and made the subject invisibale (jaw breaker myth). How come there are no boobies on US tv? What is the constant bleeping?</p></div><p>Not really a free speech issue, as above, but I'm pretty sure that blaming the people you attack for this is an error of judgement.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>The US, where you can't say fuck, show a boody or a brandname but you should be able to race X should be gassed. Thanks but no thanks. I take holland,[sic] where you can say fuck, show full frontal nudity on a childrens[sic] program and brandnames can be shown as long as it is not advertising for the product (and I don't think your candy exploding is a very good advertisement). Neither system is perfect.</p></div><p>Oh yes, compare what you consider the worst instances of A to the best cases of B, that will surely lead to something very neutral and convincing.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And before you quote some founder about freedom, find out how many slaves he or his friends owned.</p></div><p>And Newton was an alchemist. Who cares?<br>And the worst part is that you were able to write this whole diatribe without for a moment placing yourself in the shoes of those whose position you claim to understand and think about why they would like speech to be more free. Not a minute do you think about what the consequences of censorship would be, how you would determine what would need to be censored, who should police it, how to get rid of censorship laws gone too far once they're there, especially when the laws and the subjects surrounding them cannot be effectively discussed because of those same laws, how the laws will be abused by people who are backwards, or hateful (letting the law come down upon someone is a lot nastier than an angry newspaper column), or simply crooks, and so on. You simply haven't thought your position through at all, and I'm happy not all our fellow citizens are like you.<br>Oh, and please watch <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6379618149058958603" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">this video</a> [google.com], you need it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Point for point.This discussion will invariable get out the " free speech or nothing " nutcases who claim that all speech should be free , while they read and post on a moderated forum with an adblocker censoring the slashdot creators.That 's just silly .
Freedom of speech is not the same thing as the right to have everyone hang onto your lips revering every single thing you say.Americans especially have a serious amount of hypocracy [ sic ] in these cases.Hypocrisy ?
At least Americans are pretty much consistent ( at least compared to us ) and you accuse them of hypocrisy ? Europeans tend to know that free speech does not exist and that true free speech is far to messy to allow.Sure add another overgeneralisation .
I 'm sure all Europeans think exactly like you do to the last comma and apostrophe .
* rolls eyes * Did you know by the way that a lot of people know that the world is only 6k years old ?
That people " know " things proves nothing.Yet while in holland [ sic ] we recently had proposal to make holocaust ( not just THE holocaust but all similar events before and since ) denial an actual and specific crime .
At the moment it already falls under hate crime laws .
Even the liberals [ sic ] ( think left of the most left democrat/indepedent you ever witnessed ) VVD who recenly [ sic ] proposed that hate crimes should be gotten rid off wanted the distinction between THINKING hate and inciting/causing hate.The reason was simple , the poor guy who suggested it was INSTANTLY shot down by everyone.You are not just oversimplifying the situation , but also misrepresenting half the Dutch people .
Do n't you read the papers ?
Public opinion was very varied , on both sides of the argument.Not just the WW2 , but the incitement to hatred that occured in Rwanda or even more recent South Africa ( where there was violent against black immigrants from native blacks , I add this because you might typical assume that racial trouble in SA would be between black and white ) .Violence is n't protected by the right to free speech.Europe once again is a powder keg .
Parties who have immigrants as part of their agenda ( meaning , they do n't want them ) are on the rise and with the economic downturn it does n't take a lot to get a sensation of deja-vu .
No , this is not 1930 germany .
There are a lot of differences with all sides involved but right now NOBODY wishes to allow someone to start spreading hate that might find a fertile breeding ground.You are sensationalising .
Europe is n't a powder keg , and it will only become that if we let it .
For example by limiting free speech , making it impossible for people to settle their differences in the public sphere , ensuring that it will brew under the surface.We know from history that hate speech can be a serious danger if the conditions are right.The conditions are n't right .
Also , you failed to mention that cases in recent history where the speech of someone caused nastiness , this was in large part because at the same time the opposition was censored.Butt [ sic ] should our freedom to say what we believe be curtailed for the chance that something bad might happen ? I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white , christian , hetero-sexual , middle class male.Right .
Obviously black people ca n't post like you do ( perhaps you are a little racist yourself ) , all those people shooting down religious " arguments " in the flamewars we wage here every now and then are just Christian trolls , and so on and so forth .
Do you even read your own words before you hit " submit " ? What does this group have to fear from hate speech ? The same thing everyone else has to fear from the whole concept if it is enshrined into law .
One day something you might have said , even if true , may be deemed hate speech , and then you 're in deep shit.They control the US.Or perhaps you were going for a " Funny " moderation ? It is easy to say hate speech should be free when it is not targetted against you .
I have no problem with americans being allowed to carry heavy weapons .
In america .
Go right ahead , carry a machine gun to the mall .
It does n't affect me.In one paragraph , we have a blatant denial of real existing hatred against white people , the Christians you mentioned yourself , nerds , etcetera , a completely gratuitous stab at what you think is wrong with US gun control , and the extremely short sighted notion that everything that happens far from your bed is not important.But if you are black or a muslim or a jew or a woman or any other group that is the subject of hate groups then it becomes a different story.No it does n't.The murders in holland [ sic ] on Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn fall under hate crimes .
People spoke nasty words about them , saying it would be better if they were gone and someone listened .
Wait until YOU are the one under a death treath before you say free speech should be totally unrestricted.Murder is already illegal .
As is premiditation for murder .
This is not a free speech issue .
( Of course , the artistic and political life of Van Gogh and Fortuyn themselves pretty much are but you of course did n't mention that story because it favours free speech .
) I am fairly willing to bet that the majority of free speech spouters on slashdot would change their tune VERY quickly if they were the subject of a hate attack.As an atheist , I 'm a constant target of hate attacks .
Let them come , I 'm ready for them.Free speech is important , but being able to say anything at all without any restrictions will be abused.Not more so than restrictive laws.Almost everything we do is restricted .
From travel ( I am free to travel across the globe but only with the proper papers ) , to reproduction ( I can only do it with women who agree ) our lives are regulared .
Why should speech be any different ? Because speech is different .
We need it to enforce public accountability , we need it to spread ideas , to combat unreason .
And censorship laws have always proven to be to the advantage of overarching governments , religious ignorance , and crooks .
( For an example of the latter , search for Simon Singh .
) And americans , [ sic ] before you try to correct me , how come that on a recent mythbusters I saw they had SO much censorship going on that it took up 50 \ % if the screen and made the subject invisibale ( jaw breaker myth ) .
How come there are no boobies on US tv ?
What is the constant bleeping ? Not really a free speech issue , as above , but I 'm pretty sure that blaming the people you attack for this is an error of judgement.The US , where you ca n't say fuck , show a boody or a brandname but you should be able to race X should be gassed .
Thanks but no thanks .
I take holland , [ sic ] where you can say fuck , show full frontal nudity on a childrens [ sic ] program and brandnames can be shown as long as it is not advertising for the product ( and I do n't think your candy exploding is a very good advertisement ) .
Neither system is perfect.Oh yes , compare what you consider the worst instances of A to the best cases of B , that will surely lead to something very neutral and convincing.And before you quote some founder about freedom , find out how many slaves he or his friends owned.And Newton was an alchemist .
Who cares ? And the worst part is that you were able to write this whole diatribe without for a moment placing yourself in the shoes of those whose position you claim to understand and think about why they would like speech to be more free .
Not a minute do you think about what the consequences of censorship would be , how you would determine what would need to be censored , who should police it , how to get rid of censorship laws gone too far once they 're there , especially when the laws and the subjects surrounding them can not be effectively discussed because of those same laws , how the laws will be abused by people who are backwards , or hateful ( letting the law come down upon someone is a lot nastier than an angry newspaper column ) , or simply crooks , and so on .
You simply have n't thought your position through at all , and I 'm happy not all our fellow citizens are like you.Oh , and please watch this video [ google.com ] , you need it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Point for point.This discussion will invariable get out the "free speech or nothing" nutcases who claim that all speech should be free, while they read and post on a moderated forum with an adblocker censoring the slashdot creators.That's just silly.
Freedom of speech is not the same thing as the right to have everyone hang onto your lips revering every single thing you say.Americans especially have a serious amount of hypocracy[sic] in these cases.Hypocrisy?
At least Americans are pretty much consistent (at least compared to us) and you accuse them of hypocrisy?Europeans tend to know that free speech does not exist and that true free speech is far to messy to allow.Sure add another overgeneralisation.
I'm sure all Europeans think exactly like you do to the last comma and apostrophe.
*rolls eyes* Did you know by the way that a lot of people know that the world is only 6k years old?
That people "know" things proves nothing.Yet while in holland[sic] we recently had proposal to make holocaust (not just THE holocaust but all similar events before and since) denial an actual and specific crime.
At the moment it already falls under hate crime laws.
Even the liberals[sic] (think left of the most left democrat/indepedent you ever witnessed) VVD who recenly[sic] proposed that hate crimes should be gotten rid off wanted the distinction between THINKING hate and inciting/causing hate.The reason was simple, the poor guy who suggested it was INSTANTLY shot down by everyone.You are not just oversimplifying the situation, but also misrepresenting half the Dutch people.
Don't you read the papers?
Public opinion was very varied, on both sides of the argument.Not just the WW2, but the incitement to hatred that occured in Rwanda or even more recent South Africa (where there was violent against black immigrants from native blacks, I add this because you might typical assume that racial trouble in SA would be between black and white).Violence isn't protected by the right to free speech.Europe once again is a powder keg.
Parties who have immigrants as part of their agenda (meaning, they don't want them) are on the rise and with the economic downturn it doesn't take a lot to get a sensation of deja-vu.
No, this is not 1930 germany.
There are a lot of differences with all sides involved but right now NOBODY wishes to allow someone to start spreading hate that might find a fertile breeding ground.You are sensationalising.
Europe isn't a powder keg, and it will only become that if we let it.
For example by limiting free speech, making it impossible for people to settle their differences in the public sphere, ensuring that it will brew under the surface.We know from history that hate speech can be a serious danger if the conditions are right.The conditions aren't right.
Also, you failed to mention that cases in recent history where the speech of someone caused nastiness, this was in large part because at the same time the opposition was censored.Butt[sic] should our freedom to say what we believe be curtailed for the chance that something bad might happen?I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male.Right.
Obviously black people can't post like you do (perhaps you are a little racist yourself), all those people shooting down religious "arguments" in the flamewars we wage here every now and then are just Christian trolls, and so on and so forth.
Do you even read your own words before you hit "submit"?What does this group have to fear from hate speech?The same thing everyone else has to fear from the whole concept if it is enshrined into law.
One day something you might have said, even if true, may be deemed hate speech, and then you're in deep shit.They control the US.Or perhaps you were going for a "Funny" moderation?It is easy to say hate speech should be free when it is not targetted against you.
I have no problem with americans being allowed to carry heavy weapons.
In america.
Go right ahead, carry a machine gun to the mall.
It doesn't affect me.In one paragraph, we have a blatant denial of real existing hatred against white people, the Christians you mentioned yourself, nerds, etcetera, a completely gratuitous stab at what you think is wrong with US gun control, and the extremely short sighted notion that everything that happens far from your bed is not important.But if you are black or a muslim or a jew or a woman or any other group that is the subject of hate groups then it becomes a different story.No it doesn't.The murders in holland[sic] on Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn fall under hate crimes.
People spoke nasty words about them, saying it would be better if they were gone and someone listened.
Wait until YOU are the one under a death treath before you say free speech should be totally unrestricted.Murder is already illegal.
As is premiditation for murder.
This is not a free speech issue.
(Of course, the artistic and political life of Van Gogh and Fortuyn themselves pretty much are but you of course didn't mention that story because it favours free speech.
)I am fairly willing to bet that the majority of free speech spouters on slashdot would change their tune VERY quickly if they were the subject of a hate attack.As an atheist, I'm a constant target of hate attacks.
Let them come, I'm ready for them.Free speech is important, but being able to say anything at all without any restrictions will be abused.Not more so than restrictive laws.Almost everything we do is restricted.
From travel (I am free to travel across the globe but only with the proper papers), to reproduction (I can only do it with women who agree) our lives are regulared.
Why should speech be any different?Because speech is different.
We need it to enforce public accountability, we need it to spread ideas, to combat unreason.
And censorship laws have always proven to be to the advantage of overarching governments, religious ignorance, and crooks.
(For an example of the latter, search for Simon Singh.
)And americans,[sic] before you try to correct me, how come that on a recent mythbusters I saw they had SO much censorship going on that it took up 50\% if the screen and made the subject invisibale (jaw breaker myth).
How come there are no boobies on US tv?
What is the constant bleeping?Not really a free speech issue, as above, but I'm pretty sure that blaming the people you attack for this is an error of judgement.The US, where you can't say fuck, show a boody or a brandname but you should be able to race X should be gassed.
Thanks but no thanks.
I take holland,[sic] where you can say fuck, show full frontal nudity on a childrens[sic] program and brandnames can be shown as long as it is not advertising for the product (and I don't think your candy exploding is a very good advertisement).
Neither system is perfect.Oh yes, compare what you consider the worst instances of A to the best cases of B, that will surely lead to something very neutral and convincing.And before you quote some founder about freedom, find out how many slaves he or his friends owned.And Newton was an alchemist.
Who cares?And the worst part is that you were able to write this whole diatribe without for a moment placing yourself in the shoes of those whose position you claim to understand and think about why they would like speech to be more free.
Not a minute do you think about what the consequences of censorship would be, how you would determine what would need to be censored, who should police it, how to get rid of censorship laws gone too far once they're there, especially when the laws and the subjects surrounding them cannot be effectively discussed because of those same laws, how the laws will be abused by people who are backwards, or hateful (letting the law come down upon someone is a lot nastier than an angry newspaper column), or simply crooks, and so on.
You simply haven't thought your position through at all, and I'm happy not all our fellow citizens are like you.Oh, and please watch this video [google.com], you need it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662093</id>
	<title>In reply to this calamity...</title>
	<author>lawnboy5-O</author>
	<datestamp>1247342040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I HATE ARTICLES LIKE THIS!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I HATE ARTICLES LIKE THIS !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I HATE ARTICLES LIKE THIS!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661955</id>
	<title>yeah</title>
	<author>z-j-y</author>
	<datestamp>1247341020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>stupid Caucasians!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>stupid Caucasians !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>stupid Caucasians!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662357</id>
	<title>Re:Passport question for the UK folks . . .</title>
	<author>liquidsunshine</author>
	<datestamp>1247343660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe they just flew The Crimson Permanent Assurance building across the pond.  =)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they just flew The Crimson Permanent Assurance building across the pond .
= )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they just flew The Crimson Permanent Assurance building across the pond.
=)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039</id>
	<title>There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK</title>
	<author>number6x</author>
	<datestamp>1247341620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK
</p><p>It is simply a fact.

</p><p>The vast majority of countries do not allow simple basic freedoms. Even the freedom for stupid people to say stupid things.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK It is simply a fact .
The vast majority of countries do not allow simple basic freedoms .
Even the freedom for stupid people to say stupid things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK
It is simply a fact.
The vast majority of countries do not allow simple basic freedoms.
Even the freedom for stupid people to say stupid things.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664783</id>
	<title>Freedom of speach include all speech whatsoever</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1247323440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freedom of speech is the right to speak <em>to anyone</em> whatsoever, <em>about anything</em> whatsoever, true or false, without incurring any legal consequence. Cases involving the right to free speech naturally tend to concern themselves with highly controversial speech, and the outcomes tend to reflect personal and/or social biases rather than justice. Nonetheless, the U.S. Constitution makes no exception for any specific form of speech; all speech is protected. The U.S. Constitution aside, no punishment thus far proposed as a response to unwanted speech meets the simple test of being proportional to the supposed offense. No formal judgment is needed to respond in kind, and no court has the authority to hand down a disproportionate penalty for any offense, real or imagined.</p><p>In the case of fraud, certain false statements inhibit the "meeting of the minds" required for a valid contract, making any contract based on such false claims void. This is not a punishment for false speech, but rather a recognition that the contract was never valid to begin with. None of the other examples should be illegal, and making them so contradicts the First Amendment in the U.S., no matter how much certain judges and lawmakers might prefer otherwise.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freedom of speech is the right to speak to anyone whatsoever , about anything whatsoever , true or false , without incurring any legal consequence .
Cases involving the right to free speech naturally tend to concern themselves with highly controversial speech , and the outcomes tend to reflect personal and/or social biases rather than justice .
Nonetheless , the U.S. Constitution makes no exception for any specific form of speech ; all speech is protected .
The U.S. Constitution aside , no punishment thus far proposed as a response to unwanted speech meets the simple test of being proportional to the supposed offense .
No formal judgment is needed to respond in kind , and no court has the authority to hand down a disproportionate penalty for any offense , real or imagined.In the case of fraud , certain false statements inhibit the " meeting of the minds " required for a valid contract , making any contract based on such false claims void .
This is not a punishment for false speech , but rather a recognition that the contract was never valid to begin with .
None of the other examples should be illegal , and making them so contradicts the First Amendment in the U.S. , no matter how much certain judges and lawmakers might prefer otherwise .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freedom of speech is the right to speak to anyone whatsoever, about anything whatsoever, true or false, without incurring any legal consequence.
Cases involving the right to free speech naturally tend to concern themselves with highly controversial speech, and the outcomes tend to reflect personal and/or social biases rather than justice.
Nonetheless, the U.S. Constitution makes no exception for any specific form of speech; all speech is protected.
The U.S. Constitution aside, no punishment thus far proposed as a response to unwanted speech meets the simple test of being proportional to the supposed offense.
No formal judgment is needed to respond in kind, and no court has the authority to hand down a disproportionate penalty for any offense, real or imagined.In the case of fraud, certain false statements inhibit the "meeting of the minds" required for a valid contract, making any contract based on such false claims void.
This is not a punishment for false speech, but rather a recognition that the contract was never valid to begin with.
None of the other examples should be illegal, and making them so contradicts the First Amendment in the U.S., no matter how much certain judges and lawmakers might prefer otherwise.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663883</id>
	<title>Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247312280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised no one has made reference to this yet, perhaps it is time people, to voice your disapproval or approval for what they are trying to pass in the House and Senate. Time to wake up.</p><p>http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/show</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised no one has made reference to this yet , perhaps it is time people , to voice your disapproval or approval for what they are trying to pass in the House and Senate .
Time to wake up.http : //www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/show</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised no one has made reference to this yet, perhaps it is time people, to voice your disapproval or approval for what they are trying to pass in the House and Senate.
Time to wake up.http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/show</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662533</id>
	<title>Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK</title>
	<author>phantomfive</author>
	<datestamp>1247344740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And they were idiotic.  Check out this quote from the article:<p><div class="quote"><p>One leaflet claimed that Auschwitz had not really been the location of industrial mass murder but had been, instead, a holiday camp provided by a benevolent Nazi regime for Europe's Jewish population.</p></div><p>I mean, seriously, do you know how many things you have to ignore to believe something like that?<br> <br>
In any case, the United States has limits on free speech as well: if what you are saying incites violence in a way that police won't be able to arrive in time to stop it, then it is illegal speech.  Every place has some limits on speech, someone mentioned that if you say the wrong things in the middle of Belfast, people will likely die.  Fair or not, that's how it is.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And they were idiotic .
Check out this quote from the article : One leaflet claimed that Auschwitz had not really been the location of industrial mass murder but had been , instead , a holiday camp provided by a benevolent Nazi regime for Europe 's Jewish population.I mean , seriously , do you know how many things you have to ignore to believe something like that ?
In any case , the United States has limits on free speech as well : if what you are saying incites violence in a way that police wo n't be able to arrive in time to stop it , then it is illegal speech .
Every place has some limits on speech , someone mentioned that if you say the wrong things in the middle of Belfast , people will likely die .
Fair or not , that 's how it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they were idiotic.
Check out this quote from the article:One leaflet claimed that Auschwitz had not really been the location of industrial mass murder but had been, instead, a holiday camp provided by a benevolent Nazi regime for Europe's Jewish population.I mean, seriously, do you know how many things you have to ignore to believe something like that?
In any case, the United States has limits on free speech as well: if what you are saying incites violence in a way that police won't be able to arrive in time to stop it, then it is illegal speech.
Every place has some limits on speech, someone mentioned that if you say the wrong things in the middle of Belfast, people will likely die.
Fair or not, that's how it is.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665275</id>
	<title>Re:No Asylum?</title>
	<author>onefriedrice</author>
	<datestamp>1247331840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Not this again.  Let's try to stay on topic.  Writing and say what you believe is not at all similar to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.  With the former, you are expressing yourself; with the latter, you're just being a dick and potentially causing harm to people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Not this again .
Let 's try to stay on topic .
Writing and say what you believe is not at all similar to yelling " fire " in a crowded theater .
With the former , you are expressing yourself ; with the latter , you 're just being a dick and potentially causing harm to people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not this again.
Let's try to stay on topic.
Writing and say what you believe is not at all similar to yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.
With the former, you are expressing yourself; with the latter, you're just being a dick and potentially causing harm to people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662277</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662701</id>
	<title>Re:!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247302800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I claim that your ability to silence what I say is harm, are you going to lock yourself up in a jail cell?  Or wait, lemme guess... it's you, the wise, enlightened populist liberal, that gets to decide what constitutes "harm," what opinions are "harmful," no?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I claim that your ability to silence what I say is harm , are you going to lock yourself up in a jail cell ?
Or wait , lem me guess... it 's you , the wise , enlightened populist liberal , that gets to decide what constitutes " harm , " what opinions are " harmful , " no ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I claim that your ability to silence what I say is harm, are you going to lock yourself up in a jail cell?
Or wait, lemme guess... it's you, the wise, enlightened populist liberal, that gets to decide what constitutes "harm," what opinions are "harmful," no?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662219</id>
	<title>The same way it works in the US</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247342760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Where a UK website was accused in a (texas?) court, didn't turn up and was convicted in absentia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Where a UK website was accused in a ( texas ?
) court , did n't turn up and was convicted in absentia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Where a UK website was accused in a (texas?
) court, didn't turn up and was convicted in absentia.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663151</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247306520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male. What does this group have to fear from hate speech?</p></div><p>"Hate Speech" is regularly practiced by "minorities" against white male Christians.  It's not labeled as such, because the double standard is that reverse racism does not exist, and that essentially only white males are capable of the crime.   Has an African American or Hispanic <i>ever</i> been prosecuted for a racially-motivated attack against a White in the United States? I doubt it.  Do Hispanics and African-Americans attack Whites because they are viewed as easy targets?  Consistently and constantly - the FBI crime statistics broken down by race of perpetrator and victim are freely available online for anyone who cares to take a look.</p><p>Nobody truly wants "equality."  All legislation and efforts to enforce such a state of affairs are merely parts of the endless human struggle of group against group, and nothing is done if there is not a benefit for a particular group involved.  Do you truly think that Blacks, Muslims, Jews, and women are not capable of hating and perpetrating the same level of atrocities that the standard historical references of White hate groups could? There is ample evidence that they can.  It truly shows to what a sorry state the indigenous inhabitants of the UK have fallen that Muslim imams can openly preach death to the native population while afforded police protection, and yet the Heretical Two rot in a jail cell.  Perhaps their greatest error was attempting to seek asylum in the United States - I don't understand why they believed they would find any sanctuary here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white , christian , hetero-sexual , middle class male .
What does this group have to fear from hate speech ?
" Hate Speech " is regularly practiced by " minorities " against white male Christians .
It 's not labeled as such , because the double standard is that reverse racism does not exist , and that essentially only white males are capable of the crime .
Has an African American or Hispanic ever been prosecuted for a racially-motivated attack against a White in the United States ?
I doubt it .
Do Hispanics and African-Americans attack Whites because they are viewed as easy targets ?
Consistently and constantly - the FBI crime statistics broken down by race of perpetrator and victim are freely available online for anyone who cares to take a look.Nobody truly wants " equality .
" All legislation and efforts to enforce such a state of affairs are merely parts of the endless human struggle of group against group , and nothing is done if there is not a benefit for a particular group involved .
Do you truly think that Blacks , Muslims , Jews , and women are not capable of hating and perpetrating the same level of atrocities that the standard historical references of White hate groups could ?
There is ample evidence that they can .
It truly shows to what a sorry state the indigenous inhabitants of the UK have fallen that Muslim imams can openly preach death to the native population while afforded police protection , and yet the Heretical Two rot in a jail cell .
Perhaps their greatest error was attempting to seek asylum in the United States - I do n't understand why they believed they would find any sanctuary here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male.
What does this group have to fear from hate speech?
"Hate Speech" is regularly practiced by "minorities" against white male Christians.
It's not labeled as such, because the double standard is that reverse racism does not exist, and that essentially only white males are capable of the crime.
Has an African American or Hispanic ever been prosecuted for a racially-motivated attack against a White in the United States?
I doubt it.
Do Hispanics and African-Americans attack Whites because they are viewed as easy targets?
Consistently and constantly - the FBI crime statistics broken down by race of perpetrator and victim are freely available online for anyone who cares to take a look.Nobody truly wants "equality.
"  All legislation and efforts to enforce such a state of affairs are merely parts of the endless human struggle of group against group, and nothing is done if there is not a benefit for a particular group involved.
Do you truly think that Blacks, Muslims, Jews, and women are not capable of hating and perpetrating the same level of atrocities that the standard historical references of White hate groups could?
There is ample evidence that they can.
It truly shows to what a sorry state the indigenous inhabitants of the UK have fallen that Muslim imams can openly preach death to the native population while afforded police protection, and yet the Heretical Two rot in a jail cell.
Perhaps their greatest error was attempting to seek asylum in the United States - I don't understand why they believed they would find any sanctuary here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662443</id>
	<title>Re:What do they hope to accomplish?</title>
	<author>hedwards</author>
	<datestamp>1247344080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The common thread amongst racists that I've found is that they invariably want someone to blame for the state of their own lives, and they choose someone who is obviously different from them, because it's easy.  These guys aren't smart, capable people; they're losers. It takes people with amazing charisma and a climate of social discontent to legitimise racially prejudicial attitudes - insulting cartoons shoved under a synagogue door don't make the grade.</p></div><p>Right, and that's why we in the US have such a hard time with it. We're bound by the first amendment to allow a lot of that crap to be said, and lacking a way of separating it out without violating the rights of people to properly debate the issue we're stuck with it that way.<br> <br>

The problem though is that when bigots like Bill O'reilly or Rush Limbaugh stoke the flames, eventually somebody out there can and will take them up on it. It's already happened at least 2 times in recent memory. The DC Holocaust museum shooter and the man in PA that shot and killed several police officers a couple months back. They were both white supremecists, they both believed that the President was coming for their guns, despite all the evidence to the contrary and they both murdered innocent people as a result of delusional beliefs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The common thread amongst racists that I 've found is that they invariably want someone to blame for the state of their own lives , and they choose someone who is obviously different from them , because it 's easy .
These guys are n't smart , capable people ; they 're losers .
It takes people with amazing charisma and a climate of social discontent to legitimise racially prejudicial attitudes - insulting cartoons shoved under a synagogue door do n't make the grade.Right , and that 's why we in the US have such a hard time with it .
We 're bound by the first amendment to allow a lot of that crap to be said , and lacking a way of separating it out without violating the rights of people to properly debate the issue we 're stuck with it that way .
The problem though is that when bigots like Bill O'reilly or Rush Limbaugh stoke the flames , eventually somebody out there can and will take them up on it .
It 's already happened at least 2 times in recent memory .
The DC Holocaust museum shooter and the man in PA that shot and killed several police officers a couple months back .
They were both white supremecists , they both believed that the President was coming for their guns , despite all the evidence to the contrary and they both murdered innocent people as a result of delusional beliefs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The common thread amongst racists that I've found is that they invariably want someone to blame for the state of their own lives, and they choose someone who is obviously different from them, because it's easy.
These guys aren't smart, capable people; they're losers.
It takes people with amazing charisma and a climate of social discontent to legitimise racially prejudicial attitudes - insulting cartoons shoved under a synagogue door don't make the grade.Right, and that's why we in the US have such a hard time with it.
We're bound by the first amendment to allow a lot of that crap to be said, and lacking a way of separating it out without violating the rights of people to properly debate the issue we're stuck with it that way.
The problem though is that when bigots like Bill O'reilly or Rush Limbaugh stoke the flames, eventually somebody out there can and will take them up on it.
It's already happened at least 2 times in recent memory.
The DC Holocaust museum shooter and the man in PA that shot and killed several police officers a couple months back.
They were both white supremecists, they both believed that the President was coming for their guns, despite all the evidence to the contrary and they both murdered innocent people as a result of delusional beliefs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662319</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently Free Speech rights do not cover Hate</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247343360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hate speech isn't the problem.  It's perfectly ok to say you hate blacks, jews, whites, whatever.  Your public reputation might not survive the beating it'll take if you engage in that sort of behavior, but the government won't stop you.</p><p>Example: Fred Phelps and his ilk have made a name for themselves on their "God hates fags" slogan, and the law protects them.</p><p>The difference is they aren't telling people to assault or kill homosexuals, nor are they doing it themselves.  That's what will get you in trouble.</p><p>I'm allowed to own a gun, but if I use it in a robbery it becomes armed robbery.</p><p>Assault with a deadly weapon becomes aggravated assault.</p><p>Similarly, a crime targeted specifically towards blacks/hispanics/asians/whatever becomes a "hate crime".  (I don't like "hate crime" as a term because it implies that hating somebody is a thought crime.  "Race crime" is probably a better term.)</p><p>It's the heightened sense of intent behind the crime that gets you the bonus points, but in the end you still have to commit an actual crime.  Simply saying you disagree with what Martin Luther King Jr. fought for isn't going to get you prosecuted.</p><p>Not in the US anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hate speech is n't the problem .
It 's perfectly ok to say you hate blacks , jews , whites , whatever .
Your public reputation might not survive the beating it 'll take if you engage in that sort of behavior , but the government wo n't stop you.Example : Fred Phelps and his ilk have made a name for themselves on their " God hates fags " slogan , and the law protects them.The difference is they are n't telling people to assault or kill homosexuals , nor are they doing it themselves .
That 's what will get you in trouble.I 'm allowed to own a gun , but if I use it in a robbery it becomes armed robbery.Assault with a deadly weapon becomes aggravated assault.Similarly , a crime targeted specifically towards blacks/hispanics/asians/whatever becomes a " hate crime " .
( I do n't like " hate crime " as a term because it implies that hating somebody is a thought crime .
" Race crime " is probably a better term .
) It 's the heightened sense of intent behind the crime that gets you the bonus points , but in the end you still have to commit an actual crime .
Simply saying you disagree with what Martin Luther King Jr. fought for is n't going to get you prosecuted.Not in the US anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hate speech isn't the problem.
It's perfectly ok to say you hate blacks, jews, whites, whatever.
Your public reputation might not survive the beating it'll take if you engage in that sort of behavior, but the government won't stop you.Example: Fred Phelps and his ilk have made a name for themselves on their "God hates fags" slogan, and the law protects them.The difference is they aren't telling people to assault or kill homosexuals, nor are they doing it themselves.
That's what will get you in trouble.I'm allowed to own a gun, but if I use it in a robbery it becomes armed robbery.Assault with a deadly weapon becomes aggravated assault.Similarly, a crime targeted specifically towards blacks/hispanics/asians/whatever becomes a "hate crime".
(I don't like "hate crime" as a term because it implies that hating somebody is a thought crime.
"Race crime" is probably a better term.
)It's the heightened sense of intent behind the crime that gets you the bonus points, but in the end you still have to commit an actual crime.
Simply saying you disagree with what Martin Luther King Jr. fought for isn't going to get you prosecuted.Not in the US anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663279</id>
	<title>Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247307480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They didn't publish in the UK, they published in the US. I don't know about the UK but here in the US we acknowledge that actions committed in other countries fall under the laws of that country.</p><p>If this were a corporation doing business under the laws of another country in that country there would zero chance of prosecuting the CEO even though he never actually left our soil. Why should corporations be afforded more rights than actual human beings?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They did n't publish in the UK , they published in the US .
I do n't know about the UK but here in the US we acknowledge that actions committed in other countries fall under the laws of that country.If this were a corporation doing business under the laws of another country in that country there would zero chance of prosecuting the CEO even though he never actually left our soil .
Why should corporations be afforded more rights than actual human beings ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They didn't publish in the UK, they published in the US.
I don't know about the UK but here in the US we acknowledge that actions committed in other countries fall under the laws of that country.If this were a corporation doing business under the laws of another country in that country there would zero chance of prosecuting the CEO even though he never actually left our soil.
Why should corporations be afforded more rights than actual human beings?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28668601</id>
	<title>Re:Point of Origin?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1247426340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bit of a quandary.  one one haand people shouldn't be able to escape the law by running off to another country, but on the other the law itself is crap.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bit of a quandary .
one one haand people should n't be able to escape the law by running off to another country , but on the other the law itself is crap .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bit of a quandary.
one one haand people shouldn't be able to escape the law by running off to another country, but on the other the law itself is crap.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662325</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665705</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>justinlee37</author>
	<datestamp>1247339700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>If you seriously think that freedom of speech gives you a right to lie about and harass people, then I'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works and you may just find that a lot of people with disagree with you.</i> </p><p>If you seriously think that people always lie purposefully, that they are never simply mislead or mistaken, and that the government is competent and objective enough to be the supreme and all-knowing fact finder and establish beyond a doubt what the real "truth" of the world is, then I'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you seriously think that freedom of speech gives you a right to lie about and harass people , then I 'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works and you may just find that a lot of people with disagree with you .
If you seriously think that people always lie purposefully , that they are never simply mislead or mistaken , and that the government is competent and objective enough to be the supreme and all-knowing fact finder and establish beyond a doubt what the real " truth " of the world is , then I 'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If you seriously think that freedom of speech gives you a right to lie about and harass people, then I'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works and you may just find that a lot of people with disagree with you.
If you seriously think that people always lie purposefully, that they are never simply mislead or mistaken, and that the government is competent and objective enough to be the supreme and all-knowing fact finder and establish beyond a doubt what the real "truth" of the world is, then I'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662467</id>
	<title>they hate me, too, and I don't care</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1247344320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Their web site is called <a href="http://heretical.com/" title="heretical.com">heretical.com</a> [heretical.com].  They apparently hate me, too.</p><p>But their writing is so discombobulated that I'd be much more concerned about the threat to my life and liberty from a government that thinks it needs to throw people in jail over this drivel than about these two nuts or their readers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Their web site is called heretical.com [ heretical.com ] .
They apparently hate me , too.But their writing is so discombobulated that I 'd be much more concerned about the threat to my life and liberty from a government that thinks it needs to throw people in jail over this drivel than about these two nuts or their readers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Their web site is called heretical.com [heretical.com].
They apparently hate me, too.But their writing is so discombobulated that I'd be much more concerned about the threat to my life and liberty from a government that thinks it needs to throw people in jail over this drivel than about these two nuts or their readers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666087</id>
	<title>Re:!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247392560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to kill you you fucking bastard. I'm going to gather a group of people, find your house and skull fuck your eyes socket while you're still alive. I'm going to kill you whole fucking family, too. I'll find out your genology and kill anyone even slightly related to you (even if it means skull fucking myself to death in the end). You're a horrible piece of shit and I encourage everyone reading this to join me on my mission to whipe all traces of your genes of this planet.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't tell someone that you're going to kill them and expect to get away with it.</p></div><p>Check</p><p><div class="quote"><p> You likewise can't threaten everyone who's a member of a group, racial or otherwise, and expect to get away with it.</p> </div><p> Check (your family)</p><p><div class="quote"><p>You can think about genocide, but the moment you do something, including organizing or inciting others to carry it out, you've crossed the line.</p></div><p>Check</p><p><div class="quote"><p> And that's when we have governments to protect us from you, not you from the consequences of your speech.</p></div><p>So, when should I expect the guys in suits?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to kill you you fucking bastard .
I 'm going to gather a group of people , find your house and skull fuck your eyes socket while you 're still alive .
I 'm going to kill you whole fucking family , too .
I 'll find out your genology and kill anyone even slightly related to you ( even if it means skull fucking myself to death in the end ) .
You 're a horrible piece of shit and I encourage everyone reading this to join me on my mission to whipe all traces of your genes of this planet.You ca n't tell someone that you 're going to kill them and expect to get away with it.Check You likewise ca n't threaten everyone who 's a member of a group , racial or otherwise , and expect to get away with it .
Check ( your family ) You can think about genocide , but the moment you do something , including organizing or inciting others to carry it out , you 've crossed the line.Check And that 's when we have governments to protect us from you , not you from the consequences of your speech.So , when should I expect the guys in suits ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to kill you you fucking bastard.
I'm going to gather a group of people, find your house and skull fuck your eyes socket while you're still alive.
I'm going to kill you whole fucking family, too.
I'll find out your genology and kill anyone even slightly related to you (even if it means skull fucking myself to death in the end).
You're a horrible piece of shit and I encourage everyone reading this to join me on my mission to whipe all traces of your genes of this planet.You can't tell someone that you're going to kill them and expect to get away with it.Check You likewise can't threaten everyone who's a member of a group, racial or otherwise, and expect to get away with it.
Check (your family)You can think about genocide, but the moment you do something, including organizing or inciting others to carry it out, you've crossed the line.Check And that's when we have governments to protect us from you, not you from the consequences of your speech.So, when should I expect the guys in suits?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663009</id>
	<title>UN rights</title>
	<author>munky99999</author>
	<datestamp>1247305500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948)</p><p>Article 19<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.</p><p>Perhaps we should jail <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Sawers" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Sawers</a> [wikipedia.org] for breaking the UN rules?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ( UDHR ) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly ( 10 December 1948 ) Article 19         Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression ; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek , receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.Perhaps we should jail http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John \ _Sawers [ wikipedia.org ] for breaking the UN rules ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (10 December 1948)Article 19
        Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.Perhaps we should jail http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John\_Sawers [wikipedia.org] for breaking the UN rules?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662827</id>
	<title>Re:Point of Origin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247303940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called the Internet. When you write something in one place, it's like you wrote it all over the place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called the Internet .
When you write something in one place , it 's like you wrote it all over the place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called the Internet.
When you write something in one place, it's like you wrote it all over the place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665147</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247329860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I undersand your 3,4,5.. But I don't understand the definition of "harass people". Is there a legal defnition somewhere?</p><p>So I get quite confused about "Lie about and harrass"</p><p>Freedom of movement does not give you access to someone's private property... what's the big deal.. no one is arguing.</p><p>As to "nor does freedom of speech entitle you to spread lies about my sexual orientation"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. and hence the libel laws...</p><p>I doubt the issue is about slander (lies) about one's sexual orientation or skin color or religion.</p><p>I think the concern is about the generalizations that are attached to individuals with those attributes.</p><p>I just deny the Governement the Insight to know when those generalizations are valid or not. It isn't Government's job.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I undersand your 3,4,5.. But I do n't understand the definition of " harass people " .
Is there a legal defnition somewhere ? So I get quite confused about " Lie about and harrass " Freedom of movement does not give you access to someone 's private property... what 's the big deal.. no one is arguing.As to " nor does freedom of speech entitle you to spread lies about my sexual orientation " .. and hence the libel laws...I doubt the issue is about slander ( lies ) about one 's sexual orientation or skin color or religion.I think the concern is about the generalizations that are attached to individuals with those attributes.I just deny the Governement the Insight to know when those generalizations are valid or not .
It is n't Government 's job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I undersand your 3,4,5.. But I don't understand the definition of "harass people".
Is there a legal defnition somewhere?So I get quite confused about "Lie about and harrass"Freedom of movement does not give you access to someone's private property... what's the big deal.. no one is arguing.As to "nor does freedom of speech entitle you to spread lies about my sexual orientation" .. and hence the libel laws...I doubt the issue is about slander (lies) about one's sexual orientation or skin color or religion.I think the concern is about the generalizations that are attached to individuals with those attributes.I just deny the Governement the Insight to know when those generalizations are valid or not.
It isn't Government's job.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662653</id>
	<title>Re:assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247345700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Christianity does nothing of the sort (but it doesn't surprise me that you think so).  Next time you think that, however, I'd challenge you to actually read the words of Christ and then say that again.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Christianity does nothing of the sort ( but it does n't surprise me that you think so ) .
Next time you think that , however , I 'd challenge you to actually read the words of Christ and then say that again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Christianity does nothing of the sort (but it doesn't surprise me that you think so).
Next time you think that, however, I'd challenge you to actually read the words of Christ and then say that again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666025</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247390580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you should probably just kill yourself since you're such a fucking idiot</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you should probably just kill yourself since you 're such a fucking idiot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you should probably just kill yourself since you're such a fucking idiot</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662971</id>
	<title>Re:!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247305200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>In US law, anything is protected speech unless it is an *immediate* threat of violence [wikipedia.org] (i.e. inciting a riot when you are actually in the riot).</i> </p><p>
This is in the genre known as "popular fiction".  For instance, where was the immediate threat of violence when 2600 was barred from publishing a <i>link</i> to a website containing DeCSS?  Libel, slander, trademarks, "free speech zones", the DMCA... there are many, many ways to censor speech particular people don't like that has nothing to do with protecting against the immediate threat of violence.  Free speech in the USA is propaganda more than anything else.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In US law , anything is protected speech unless it is an * immediate * threat of violence [ wikipedia.org ] ( i.e .
inciting a riot when you are actually in the riot ) .
This is in the genre known as " popular fiction " .
For instance , where was the immediate threat of violence when 2600 was barred from publishing a link to a website containing DeCSS ?
Libel , slander , trademarks , " free speech zones " , the DMCA... there are many , many ways to censor speech particular people do n't like that has nothing to do with protecting against the immediate threat of violence .
Free speech in the USA is propaganda more than anything else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> In US law, anything is protected speech unless it is an *immediate* threat of violence [wikipedia.org] (i.e.
inciting a riot when you are actually in the riot).
This is in the genre known as "popular fiction".
For instance, where was the immediate threat of violence when 2600 was barred from publishing a link to a website containing DeCSS?
Libel, slander, trademarks, "free speech zones", the DMCA... there are many, many ways to censor speech particular people don't like that has nothing to do with protecting against the immediate threat of violence.
Free speech in the USA is propaganda more than anything else.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665569</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>perpetual pessimist</author>
	<datestamp>1247337000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yet while in holland we recently had proposal to make holocaust (not just THE holocaust but all similar events before and since) denial an actual and specific crime. At the moment it already falls under hate crime laws.</p></div><p>Then if I said, while in Holland, something like "Isn't it awful how those poor white people in Finland had to almost all perish in the Finnish Holocaust of 2005?" it would be a crime to deny my statement?  Even if it wasn't true?  Because denying my statement would be holocaust denial.</p><p>Outlawing "denial" is outlawing an attempt to search for the truth.  Because those "deniers" that you hate so much... what if they're right?  No, I don't think those who deny the Jewish Holocaust in WWII are right, but I read their arguments and made up my own mind, thank you very much.</p><p>The very act of outlawing their arguments makes their arguments seem stronger!  Because the truth doesn't need the protection of the law, only lies do.  And that a society seeks to suppress a debate, however silly, about historical events is a sign of that society's weakness.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yet while in holland we recently had proposal to make holocaust ( not just THE holocaust but all similar events before and since ) denial an actual and specific crime .
At the moment it already falls under hate crime laws.Then if I said , while in Holland , something like " Is n't it awful how those poor white people in Finland had to almost all perish in the Finnish Holocaust of 2005 ?
" it would be a crime to deny my statement ?
Even if it was n't true ?
Because denying my statement would be holocaust denial.Outlawing " denial " is outlawing an attempt to search for the truth .
Because those " deniers " that you hate so much... what if they 're right ?
No , I do n't think those who deny the Jewish Holocaust in WWII are right , but I read their arguments and made up my own mind , thank you very much.The very act of outlawing their arguments makes their arguments seem stronger !
Because the truth does n't need the protection of the law , only lies do .
And that a society seeks to suppress a debate , however silly , about historical events is a sign of that society 's weakness .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yet while in holland we recently had proposal to make holocaust (not just THE holocaust but all similar events before and since) denial an actual and specific crime.
At the moment it already falls under hate crime laws.Then if I said, while in Holland, something like "Isn't it awful how those poor white people in Finland had to almost all perish in the Finnish Holocaust of 2005?
" it would be a crime to deny my statement?
Even if it wasn't true?
Because denying my statement would be holocaust denial.Outlawing "denial" is outlawing an attempt to search for the truth.
Because those "deniers" that you hate so much... what if they're right?
No, I don't think those who deny the Jewish Holocaust in WWII are right, but I read their arguments and made up my own mind, thank you very much.The very act of outlawing their arguments makes their arguments seem stronger!
Because the truth doesn't need the protection of the law, only lies do.
And that a society seeks to suppress a debate, however silly, about historical events is a sign of that society's weakness.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663329</id>
	<title>Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1247307840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No real guarantee for what is defined as 'hate speech' here in the US either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No real guarantee for what is defined as 'hate speech ' here in the US either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No real guarantee for what is defined as 'hate speech' here in the US either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</id>
	<title>What is free speech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247345760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This discussion will invariable get out the "free speech or nothing" nutcases who claim that all speech should be free, while they read and post on a moderated forum with an adblocker censoring the slashdot creators.
</p><p>Americans especially have a serious amount of hypocracy in these cases. Europeans tend to know that free speech does not exist and that true free speech is far to messy to allow. Yet while in holland we recently had proposal to make holocaust (not just THE holocaust but all similar events before and since) denial an actual and specific crime. At the moment it already falls under hate crime laws. Even the liberals (think left of the most left democrat/indepedent you ever witnessed) VVD who recenly proposed that hate crimes should be gotten rid off wanted the distinction between THINKING hate and inciting/causing hate.
</p><p>The reason was simple, the poor guy who suggested it was INSTANTLY shot down by everyone. Not just the WW2, but the incitement to hatred that occured in Rwanda or even more recent South Africa (where there was violent against black immigrants from native blacks, I add this because you might typical assume that racial trouble in SA would be between black and white).
</p><p>Europe once again is a powder keg. Parties who have immigrants as part of their agenda (meaning, they don't want them) are on the rise and with the economic downturn it doesn't take a lot to get a sensation of deja-vu. No, this is not 1930 germany. There are a lot of differences with all sides involved but right now NOBODY wishes to allow someone to start spreading hate that might find a fertile breeding ground.
</p><p>We know from history that hate speech can be a serious danger if the conditions are right. Butt should our freedom to say what we believe be curtailed for the chance that something bad might happen?
</p><p>I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male. What does this group have to fear from hate speech? They control the US. It is easy to say hate speech should be free when it is not targetted against you. I have no problem with americans being allowed to carry heavy weapons. In america. Go right ahead, carry a machine gun to the mall. It doesn't affect me.
</p><p>But if you are black or a muslim or a jew or a woman or any other group that is the subject of hate groups then it becomes a different story.
</p><p>The murders in holland on Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn fall under hate crimes. People spoke nasty words about them, saying it would be better if they were gone and someone listened. Wait until YOU are the one under a death treath before you say free speech should be totally unrestricted.
</p><p>I am fairly willing to bet that the majority of free speech spouters on slashdot would change their tune VERY quickly if they were the subject of a hate attack.
</p><p>Free speech is important, but being able to say anything at all without any restrictions will be abused.
</p><p>Almost everything we do is restricted. From travel (I am free to travel across the globe but only with the proper papers), to reproduction (I can only do it with women who agree) our lives are regulared. Why should speech be any different?
</p><p>And americans, before you try to correct me, how come that on a recent mythbusters I saw they had SO much censorship going on that it took up 50\% if the screen and made the subject invisibale (jaw breaker myth). How come there are no boobies on US tv? What is the constant bleeping?
</p><p>The US, where you can't say fuck, show a boody or a brandname but you should be able to race X should be gassed. Thanks but no thanks. I take holland, where you can say fuck, show full frontal nudity on a childrens program and brandnames can be shown as long as it is not advertising for the product (and I don't think your candy exploding is a very good advertisement). Neither system is perfect.
</p><p>And before you quote some founder about freedom, find out how many slaves he or his friends owned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This discussion will invariable get out the " free speech or nothing " nutcases who claim that all speech should be free , while they read and post on a moderated forum with an adblocker censoring the slashdot creators .
Americans especially have a serious amount of hypocracy in these cases .
Europeans tend to know that free speech does not exist and that true free speech is far to messy to allow .
Yet while in holland we recently had proposal to make holocaust ( not just THE holocaust but all similar events before and since ) denial an actual and specific crime .
At the moment it already falls under hate crime laws .
Even the liberals ( think left of the most left democrat/indepedent you ever witnessed ) VVD who recenly proposed that hate crimes should be gotten rid off wanted the distinction between THINKING hate and inciting/causing hate .
The reason was simple , the poor guy who suggested it was INSTANTLY shot down by everyone .
Not just the WW2 , but the incitement to hatred that occured in Rwanda or even more recent South Africa ( where there was violent against black immigrants from native blacks , I add this because you might typical assume that racial trouble in SA would be between black and white ) .
Europe once again is a powder keg .
Parties who have immigrants as part of their agenda ( meaning , they do n't want them ) are on the rise and with the economic downturn it does n't take a lot to get a sensation of deja-vu .
No , this is not 1930 germany .
There are a lot of differences with all sides involved but right now NOBODY wishes to allow someone to start spreading hate that might find a fertile breeding ground .
We know from history that hate speech can be a serious danger if the conditions are right .
Butt should our freedom to say what we believe be curtailed for the chance that something bad might happen ?
I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white , christian , hetero-sexual , middle class male .
What does this group have to fear from hate speech ?
They control the US .
It is easy to say hate speech should be free when it is not targetted against you .
I have no problem with americans being allowed to carry heavy weapons .
In america .
Go right ahead , carry a machine gun to the mall .
It does n't affect me .
But if you are black or a muslim or a jew or a woman or any other group that is the subject of hate groups then it becomes a different story .
The murders in holland on Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn fall under hate crimes .
People spoke nasty words about them , saying it would be better if they were gone and someone listened .
Wait until YOU are the one under a death treath before you say free speech should be totally unrestricted .
I am fairly willing to bet that the majority of free speech spouters on slashdot would change their tune VERY quickly if they were the subject of a hate attack .
Free speech is important , but being able to say anything at all without any restrictions will be abused .
Almost everything we do is restricted .
From travel ( I am free to travel across the globe but only with the proper papers ) , to reproduction ( I can only do it with women who agree ) our lives are regulared .
Why should speech be any different ?
And americans , before you try to correct me , how come that on a recent mythbusters I saw they had SO much censorship going on that it took up 50 \ % if the screen and made the subject invisibale ( jaw breaker myth ) .
How come there are no boobies on US tv ?
What is the constant bleeping ?
The US , where you ca n't say fuck , show a boody or a brandname but you should be able to race X should be gassed .
Thanks but no thanks .
I take holland , where you can say fuck , show full frontal nudity on a childrens program and brandnames can be shown as long as it is not advertising for the product ( and I do n't think your candy exploding is a very good advertisement ) .
Neither system is perfect .
And before you quote some founder about freedom , find out how many slaves he or his friends owned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This discussion will invariable get out the "free speech or nothing" nutcases who claim that all speech should be free, while they read and post on a moderated forum with an adblocker censoring the slashdot creators.
Americans especially have a serious amount of hypocracy in these cases.
Europeans tend to know that free speech does not exist and that true free speech is far to messy to allow.
Yet while in holland we recently had proposal to make holocaust (not just THE holocaust but all similar events before and since) denial an actual and specific crime.
At the moment it already falls under hate crime laws.
Even the liberals (think left of the most left democrat/indepedent you ever witnessed) VVD who recenly proposed that hate crimes should be gotten rid off wanted the distinction between THINKING hate and inciting/causing hate.
The reason was simple, the poor guy who suggested it was INSTANTLY shot down by everyone.
Not just the WW2, but the incitement to hatred that occured in Rwanda or even more recent South Africa (where there was violent against black immigrants from native blacks, I add this because you might typical assume that racial trouble in SA would be between black and white).
Europe once again is a powder keg.
Parties who have immigrants as part of their agenda (meaning, they don't want them) are on the rise and with the economic downturn it doesn't take a lot to get a sensation of deja-vu.
No, this is not 1930 germany.
There are a lot of differences with all sides involved but right now NOBODY wishes to allow someone to start spreading hate that might find a fertile breeding ground.
We know from history that hate speech can be a serious danger if the conditions are right.
Butt should our freedom to say what we believe be curtailed for the chance that something bad might happen?
I do notice that most of the most fervent supporters of free speech on this site sound and awful lot like white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male.
What does this group have to fear from hate speech?
They control the US.
It is easy to say hate speech should be free when it is not targetted against you.
I have no problem with americans being allowed to carry heavy weapons.
In america.
Go right ahead, carry a machine gun to the mall.
It doesn't affect me.
But if you are black or a muslim or a jew or a woman or any other group that is the subject of hate groups then it becomes a different story.
The murders in holland on Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn fall under hate crimes.
People spoke nasty words about them, saying it would be better if they were gone and someone listened.
Wait until YOU are the one under a death treath before you say free speech should be totally unrestricted.
I am fairly willing to bet that the majority of free speech spouters on slashdot would change their tune VERY quickly if they were the subject of a hate attack.
Free speech is important, but being able to say anything at all without any restrictions will be abused.
Almost everything we do is restricted.
From travel (I am free to travel across the globe but only with the proper papers), to reproduction (I can only do it with women who agree) our lives are regulared.
Why should speech be any different?
And americans, before you try to correct me, how come that on a recent mythbusters I saw they had SO much censorship going on that it took up 50\% if the screen and made the subject invisibale (jaw breaker myth).
How come there are no boobies on US tv?
What is the constant bleeping?
The US, where you can't say fuck, show a boody or a brandname but you should be able to race X should be gassed.
Thanks but no thanks.
I take holland, where you can say fuck, show full frontal nudity on a childrens program and brandnames can be shown as long as it is not advertising for the product (and I don't think your candy exploding is a very good advertisement).
Neither system is perfect.
And before you quote some founder about freedom, find out how many slaves he or his friends owned.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28674219</id>
	<title>Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1247486280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"here in the US we acknowledge that actions committed in other countries fall under the laws of that country."</p><p>May jaw dropped when I read that.</p><p>I am assuming you are not USian and that you are trolling<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" here in the US we acknowledge that actions committed in other countries fall under the laws of that country .
" May jaw dropped when I read that.I am assuming you are not USian and that you are trolling ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"here in the US we acknowledge that actions committed in other countries fall under the laws of that country.
"May jaw dropped when I read that.I am assuming you are not USian and that you are trolling ....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662539</id>
	<title>Shame on the US website</title>
	<author>Psyborgue</author>
	<datestamp>1247344800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They should never have handed over identifying information on their users without a subpoena valid to the US.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They should never have handed over identifying information on their users without a subpoena valid to the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They should never have handed over identifying information on their users without a subpoena valid to the US.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664155</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247314980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A nice point - though recently there has been complaint that our current laws in the UK are not sufficient to stop people from lying. For example, racist political parties recently spread untrue claims about immigrants raping a girl but they could not be prosecuted - it wasn't libel and it wasn't directly incitement.</p><p>If I say, 'religion X is evil', this is not incitement. If I say, 'religion X is evil, its members should all be rounded up and slaughtered' this is incitement.</p><p>Think of it as being a bit like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater. If there's a likelihood that it might lead to somebody getting hurt, then it's perfectly reasonable to take steps to prevent it from happening.</p><p>Pick on a real freedom of speech issue such as the blasphemy laws, or other such nonsense. These two people should be locked up. I have no trouble with that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A nice point - though recently there has been complaint that our current laws in the UK are not sufficient to stop people from lying .
For example , racist political parties recently spread untrue claims about immigrants raping a girl but they could not be prosecuted - it was n't libel and it was n't directly incitement.If I say , 'religion X is evil ' , this is not incitement .
If I say , 'religion X is evil , its members should all be rounded up and slaughtered ' this is incitement.Think of it as being a bit like yelling 'fire ' in a crowded theater .
If there 's a likelihood that it might lead to somebody getting hurt , then it 's perfectly reasonable to take steps to prevent it from happening.Pick on a real freedom of speech issue such as the blasphemy laws , or other such nonsense .
These two people should be locked up .
I have no trouble with that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A nice point - though recently there has been complaint that our current laws in the UK are not sufficient to stop people from lying.
For example, racist political parties recently spread untrue claims about immigrants raping a girl but they could not be prosecuted - it wasn't libel and it wasn't directly incitement.If I say, 'religion X is evil', this is not incitement.
If I say, 'religion X is evil, its members should all be rounded up and slaughtered' this is incitement.Think of it as being a bit like yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater.
If there's a likelihood that it might lead to somebody getting hurt, then it's perfectly reasonable to take steps to prevent it from happening.Pick on a real freedom of speech issue such as the blasphemy laws, or other such nonsense.
These two people should be locked up.
I have no trouble with that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664483</id>
	<title>Re:No Asylum?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247318400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These guys are heroes to free-speech the very thing the United States government is sworn to uphold, this would have been the perfect oppotunity to display superiority to britan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These guys are heroes to free-speech the very thing the United States government is sworn to uphold , this would have been the perfect oppotunity to display superiority to britan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These guys are heroes to free-speech the very thing the United States government is sworn to uphold, this would have been the perfect oppotunity to display superiority to britan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28680467</id>
	<title>Re:!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>theanorak</author>
	<datestamp>1247513820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Perhaps I'm misreading, but aren't you confusing "I really hate all doctors" with "I'm going to kill all doctors with this knife", or even "I'm going to kill Doc R with this knife"?</p><p>Legislation against "you should go kill him now, go on, do it, go and kill him" makes sense to me</p><p>Legislation against "I really don't like him, he smells of burned tyres and he wears lycra shorts the whole time" makes less sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps I 'm misreading , but are n't you confusing " I really hate all doctors " with " I 'm going to kill all doctors with this knife " , or even " I 'm going to kill Doc R with this knife " ? Legislation against " you should go kill him now , go on , do it , go and kill him " makes sense to meLegislation against " I really do n't like him , he smells of burned tyres and he wears lycra shorts the whole time " makes less sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps I'm misreading, but aren't you confusing "I really hate all doctors" with "I'm going to kill all doctors with this knife", or even "I'm going to kill Doc R with this knife"?Legislation against "you should go kill him now, go on, do it, go and kill him" makes sense to meLegislation against "I really don't like him, he smells of burned tyres and he wears lycra shorts the whole time" makes less sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665165</id>
	<title>Why arent muslim preachers prosecuted then ?</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1247330100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>in all of middle east, and a third of the rest of the world, muslim preachers are preaching hatred and discrimination in mosques every friday. that also includes many mosques in europe, especially france, netherlands and germany. so far, germany only prosecuted one, netherlands and britain and france prosecuted NONE. and germany did that because that guy went as far to immediately call for violence.</p><p>when does freedom of speech become hatred ? is preaching to masses for decades that they should be negative towards all other religious groups is okay ? wont there a certain turning point, a treshold will come that that many 'mild' discriminative preachings en masse will turn a knob and the thing will turn real ?</p><p>a warning to muslims - dont give me any bullshit, because im from a muslim country, been muslim in the past, studied religion hard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in all of middle east , and a third of the rest of the world , muslim preachers are preaching hatred and discrimination in mosques every friday .
that also includes many mosques in europe , especially france , netherlands and germany .
so far , germany only prosecuted one , netherlands and britain and france prosecuted NONE .
and germany did that because that guy went as far to immediately call for violence.when does freedom of speech become hatred ?
is preaching to masses for decades that they should be negative towards all other religious groups is okay ?
wont there a certain turning point , a treshold will come that that many 'mild ' discriminative preachings en masse will turn a knob and the thing will turn real ? a warning to muslims - dont give me any bullshit , because im from a muslim country , been muslim in the past , studied religion hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in all of middle east, and a third of the rest of the world, muslim preachers are preaching hatred and discrimination in mosques every friday.
that also includes many mosques in europe, especially france, netherlands and germany.
so far, germany only prosecuted one, netherlands and britain and france prosecuted NONE.
and germany did that because that guy went as far to immediately call for violence.when does freedom of speech become hatred ?
is preaching to masses for decades that they should be negative towards all other religious groups is okay ?
wont there a certain turning point, a treshold will come that that many 'mild' discriminative preachings en masse will turn a knob and the thing will turn real ?a warning to muslims - dont give me any bullshit, because im from a muslim country, been muslim in the past, studied religion hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662243</id>
	<title>Re:Point of Origin?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247342940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?"</p><p>The server was in the US, but the server is an inanimate object incapable of criminal intent, so it is not automatically relevant. The people with criminal intent were permanently in the UK at the time of the offences and the material was about the UK and ethnic minorities in the UK, targeted largely at an audience in the UK.</p><p>IANAL, but it seems that courts largely adopt an attitude of "looking through" any technology and focusing on the people involved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction ?
" The server was in the US , but the server is an inanimate object incapable of criminal intent , so it is not automatically relevant .
The people with criminal intent were permanently in the UK at the time of the offences and the material was about the UK and ethnic minorities in the UK , targeted largely at an audience in the UK.IANAL , but it seems that courts largely adopt an attitude of " looking through " any technology and focusing on the people involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?
"The server was in the US, but the server is an inanimate object incapable of criminal intent, so it is not automatically relevant.
The people with criminal intent were permanently in the UK at the time of the offences and the material was about the UK and ethnic minorities in the UK, targeted largely at an audience in the UK.IANAL, but it seems that courts largely adopt an attitude of "looking through" any technology and focusing on the people involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663169</id>
	<title>Re:No Asylum?</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1247306700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Can I start a business in the United States selling alcohol to those aged from 18-20 and then flee to Britain when I'm arrested?</p></div><p>You can't. It's too late then. You need to flee \_before\_ you are arrested.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I start a business in the United States selling alcohol to those aged from 18-20 and then flee to Britain when I 'm arrested ? You ca n't .
It 's too late then .
You need to flee \ _before \ _ you are arrested .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I start a business in the United States selling alcohol to those aged from 18-20 and then flee to Britain when I'm arrested?You can't.
It's too late then.
You need to flee \_before\_ you are arrested.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662479</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664255</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247315940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Number 2 was fnord, wasn't it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Number 2 was fnord , was n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Number 2 was fnord, wasn't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666069</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>pbaer</author>
	<datestamp>1247391960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think I heard of a statutory rape case of a white girl where they tried (maybe succeeded) with a hate crime charge. But I could be talking out of my ass.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I heard of a statutory rape case of a white girl where they tried ( maybe succeeded ) with a hate crime charge .
But I could be talking out of my ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I heard of a statutory rape case of a white girl where they tried (maybe succeeded) with a hate crime charge.
But I could be talking out of my ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663151</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28673265</id>
	<title>Re:There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" any mo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247516160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IIRC UK law already has a few extra-territorial exceptions - in theory an off-duty British cop can report a British subject for drugs overseas or underage sex (I'm not entirely sure how that works with the ages being different in each country. Perhaps it is max(money\_or\_camera\_involved ? 18 : 16, local\_age)). Also the authorities boarded ships that broadcast copyrighted music ("pirate radio ships") some time ago so that is probably still on the books.<br>And of course any British person can be extradited to the US without evidence on the say-so of a random local law-enforcer over there, e.g. if they support gambling on the internet or are looking at the governments files on alien spaceships.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IIRC UK law already has a few extra-territorial exceptions - in theory an off-duty British cop can report a British subject for drugs overseas or underage sex ( I 'm not entirely sure how that works with the ages being different in each country .
Perhaps it is max ( money \ _or \ _camera \ _involved ?
18 : 16 , local \ _age ) ) .
Also the authorities boarded ships that broadcast copyrighted music ( " pirate radio ships " ) some time ago so that is probably still on the books.And of course any British person can be extradited to the US without evidence on the say-so of a random local law-enforcer over there , e.g .
if they support gambling on the internet or are looking at the governments files on alien spaceships .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IIRC UK law already has a few extra-territorial exceptions - in theory an off-duty British cop can report a British subject for drugs overseas or underage sex (I'm not entirely sure how that works with the ages being different in each country.
Perhaps it is max(money\_or\_camera\_involved ?
18 : 16, local\_age)).
Also the authorities boarded ships that broadcast copyrighted music ("pirate radio ships") some time ago so that is probably still on the books.And of course any British person can be extradited to the US without evidence on the say-so of a random local law-enforcer over there, e.g.
if they support gambling on the internet or are looking at the governments files on alien spaceships.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28667365</id>
	<title>This has nothing to do with Free Speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247414580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Robbing a bank is a crime. What if the police catches the people in the planing stages before they actually robbed the bank?... Right, it's still a crime.</p><p>If I kill someone, it's a crime. If I tell you to kill someone and you do it, I committed a crime. What if I tell you to kill someone and you don't do it?... Right, it's still a crime!</p><p>No difference between the US and Europe so far.</p><p>What if I tell an unspecific group of people to kill another group of people and they go and commit genocide? What if they don't do it? Still a crime, it doesn't matter if you were successful in reaching your goals or not.</p><p>That's what is considered a hate speech in Europe and those people can be prosecuted.</p><p>In the states, if you have someone killed, it's a crime; but if you do it on a large enough scale, it's suddenly "free speech".</p><p>The "See, I didn't give anyone money and I didn't tell anyone in particular to do it. It's not my fault that someone felt compelled to do what I asked"-defense just doesn't work in Europe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Robbing a bank is a crime .
What if the police catches the people in the planing stages before they actually robbed the bank ? .. .
Right , it 's still a crime.If I kill someone , it 's a crime .
If I tell you to kill someone and you do it , I committed a crime .
What if I tell you to kill someone and you do n't do it ? .. .
Right , it 's still a crime ! No difference between the US and Europe so far.What if I tell an unspecific group of people to kill another group of people and they go and commit genocide ?
What if they do n't do it ?
Still a crime , it does n't matter if you were successful in reaching your goals or not.That 's what is considered a hate speech in Europe and those people can be prosecuted.In the states , if you have someone killed , it 's a crime ; but if you do it on a large enough scale , it 's suddenly " free speech " .The " See , I did n't give anyone money and I did n't tell anyone in particular to do it .
It 's not my fault that someone felt compelled to do what I asked " -defense just does n't work in Europe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Robbing a bank is a crime.
What if the police catches the people in the planing stages before they actually robbed the bank?...
Right, it's still a crime.If I kill someone, it's a crime.
If I tell you to kill someone and you do it, I committed a crime.
What if I tell you to kill someone and you don't do it?...
Right, it's still a crime!No difference between the US and Europe so far.What if I tell an unspecific group of people to kill another group of people and they go and commit genocide?
What if they don't do it?
Still a crime, it doesn't matter if you were successful in reaching your goals or not.That's what is considered a hate speech in Europe and those people can be prosecuted.In the states, if you have someone killed, it's a crime; but if you do it on a large enough scale, it's suddenly "free speech".The "See, I didn't give anyone money and I didn't tell anyone in particular to do it.
It's not my fault that someone felt compelled to do what I asked"-defense just doesn't work in Europe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664265</id>
	<title>Also matter if they were citizens</title>
	<author>Sycraft-fu</author>
	<datestamp>1247316000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The amount of protection any country, but in particular the US, will give you depends on many things, citizenship being one of them. If you are not a citizen of the US and your mother country says "We want this person back," the US is probably going to send you back barring extreme circumstances. Asylum isn't granted except in special cases.</p><p>Had they been US citizens, who were just visiting the UK when they did this, it might have been different. The US might have decided that, nope, this is not something they'll extradite for since the speech is protected in the US and was on a US server. The UK would be free to ban them from coming back, but the US might well not give them up for prosecution.</p><p>However there is just no real question in a case like this. You aren't getting asylum unless you are facing genuine persecution. Thus if your country says "send them back" then back you go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The amount of protection any country , but in particular the US , will give you depends on many things , citizenship being one of them .
If you are not a citizen of the US and your mother country says " We want this person back , " the US is probably going to send you back barring extreme circumstances .
Asylum is n't granted except in special cases.Had they been US citizens , who were just visiting the UK when they did this , it might have been different .
The US might have decided that , nope , this is not something they 'll extradite for since the speech is protected in the US and was on a US server .
The UK would be free to ban them from coming back , but the US might well not give them up for prosecution.However there is just no real question in a case like this .
You are n't getting asylum unless you are facing genuine persecution .
Thus if your country says " send them back " then back you go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The amount of protection any country, but in particular the US, will give you depends on many things, citizenship being one of them.
If you are not a citizen of the US and your mother country says "We want this person back," the US is probably going to send you back barring extreme circumstances.
Asylum isn't granted except in special cases.Had they been US citizens, who were just visiting the UK when they did this, it might have been different.
The US might have decided that, nope, this is not something they'll extradite for since the speech is protected in the US and was on a US server.
The UK would be free to ban them from coming back, but the US might well not give them up for prosecution.However there is just no real question in a case like this.
You aren't getting asylum unless you are facing genuine persecution.
Thus if your country says "send them back" then back you go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665369</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247332980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, basically, it's a crime to cause harm to other people, even by speech. Fine.</p><p>But it does <strong>not</strong> follow that it is or should be a separate crime to harass "minorities"; if you are in fact causing harm to specific people, it's already covered, and if not, it <em>shouldn't</em> be covered.</p><p>Government recognition of and assignment of rights to minority groups is both pointless and harmful, as it adds no protection for any of the people constituting these minorities, but also infringes on the liberty of everyone.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , basically , it 's a crime to cause harm to other people , even by speech .
Fine.But it does not follow that it is or should be a separate crime to harass " minorities " ; if you are in fact causing harm to specific people , it 's already covered , and if not , it should n't be covered.Government recognition of and assignment of rights to minority groups is both pointless and harmful , as it adds no protection for any of the people constituting these minorities , but also infringes on the liberty of everyone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, basically, it's a crime to cause harm to other people, even by speech.
Fine.But it does not follow that it is or should be a separate crime to harass "minorities"; if you are in fact causing harm to specific people, it's already covered, and if not, it shouldn't be covered.Government recognition of and assignment of rights to minority groups is both pointless and harmful, as it adds no protection for any of the people constituting these minorities, but also infringes on the liberty of everyone.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663243</id>
	<title>Re:No Asylum?</title>
	<author>gnasher719</author>
	<datestamp>1247307240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>No free speech in the UK, I get that (though I strongly disagree with it!), but why not offer asylum? Don't we believe in the right to free speech ourselves? Isn't this a perfect example of a situation in which we should, when someone comes to us who is being prosecuted for a crime that we do not consider to be a crime?</p></div><p>It is not that hate speech isn't considered to be bad in the USA, it is just that there is a balance to be found between the right of free speech and the right to be protected from hate crime, and the USA sets the balance slightly different than the UK, for example. Hate speech isn't fine and Ok in the USA, it just doesn't get punished as a crime because the law makers think that the right of free speech is more important. Therefore, convicting someone for hate speech isn't considered really wrong, it just means the UK strikes the balance slightly different than the US would. <br> <br>
Due to the way US extradition laws work, these people would not be extradited to the UK; for that their crime would have to be actually against US law, but they won't and shouldn't get asylum either.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No free speech in the UK , I get that ( though I strongly disagree with it !
) , but why not offer asylum ?
Do n't we believe in the right to free speech ourselves ?
Is n't this a perfect example of a situation in which we should , when someone comes to us who is being prosecuted for a crime that we do not consider to be a crime ? It is not that hate speech is n't considered to be bad in the USA , it is just that there is a balance to be found between the right of free speech and the right to be protected from hate crime , and the USA sets the balance slightly different than the UK , for example .
Hate speech is n't fine and Ok in the USA , it just does n't get punished as a crime because the law makers think that the right of free speech is more important .
Therefore , convicting someone for hate speech is n't considered really wrong , it just means the UK strikes the balance slightly different than the US would .
Due to the way US extradition laws work , these people would not be extradited to the UK ; for that their crime would have to be actually against US law , but they wo n't and should n't get asylum either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No free speech in the UK, I get that (though I strongly disagree with it!
), but why not offer asylum?
Don't we believe in the right to free speech ourselves?
Isn't this a perfect example of a situation in which we should, when someone comes to us who is being prosecuted for a crime that we do not consider to be a crime?It is not that hate speech isn't considered to be bad in the USA, it is just that there is a balance to be found between the right of free speech and the right to be protected from hate crime, and the USA sets the balance slightly different than the UK, for example.
Hate speech isn't fine and Ok in the USA, it just doesn't get punished as a crime because the law makers think that the right of free speech is more important.
Therefore, convicting someone for hate speech isn't considered really wrong, it just means the UK strikes the balance slightly different than the US would.
Due to the way US extradition laws work, these people would not be extradited to the UK; for that their crime would have to be actually against US law, but they won't and shouldn't get asylum either.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666211</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>JockTroll</author>
	<datestamp>1247395020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Loserboy turdbrain, you don't "waive" freedoms so that others can have theirs. Either everybody is free to do what they want as long as they do not infringe on someone else's rights, or nobody is free.</p><p>You cannot go around murdering people because you would take their rights to live, but you can kill in self-defence in order to protect that right. Absolute freedom, moreover, comes from absolute responsability which means you must be ready to bear the consequences of your actions.</p><p>The free man accepts and wants this, the willing slave delegates it to his master.</p><p>And there ain't no such thing as a right to safety because safety does not exist in the real world.</p><p>If you want your precious overbearing state to defend you from all harm, then by all means stop calling yourself "citizen" and cry aloud "O my lord and master, I'm yours to command, TELL ME WHAT TO DO AND KEEP ME SAFE!" while I beat you up and shit on your face.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Loserboy turdbrain , you do n't " waive " freedoms so that others can have theirs .
Either everybody is free to do what they want as long as they do not infringe on someone else 's rights , or nobody is free.You can not go around murdering people because you would take their rights to live , but you can kill in self-defence in order to protect that right .
Absolute freedom , moreover , comes from absolute responsability which means you must be ready to bear the consequences of your actions.The free man accepts and wants this , the willing slave delegates it to his master.And there ai n't no such thing as a right to safety because safety does not exist in the real world.If you want your precious overbearing state to defend you from all harm , then by all means stop calling yourself " citizen " and cry aloud " O my lord and master , I 'm yours to command , TELL ME WHAT TO DO AND KEEP ME SAFE !
" while I beat you up and shit on your face .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Loserboy turdbrain, you don't "waive" freedoms so that others can have theirs.
Either everybody is free to do what they want as long as they do not infringe on someone else's rights, or nobody is free.You cannot go around murdering people because you would take their rights to live, but you can kill in self-defence in order to protect that right.
Absolute freedom, moreover, comes from absolute responsability which means you must be ready to bear the consequences of your actions.The free man accepts and wants this, the willing slave delegates it to his master.And there ain't no such thing as a right to safety because safety does not exist in the real world.If you want your precious overbearing state to defend you from all harm, then by all means stop calling yourself "citizen" and cry aloud "O my lord and master, I'm yours to command, TELL ME WHAT TO DO AND KEEP ME SAFE!
" while I beat you up and shit on your face.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663013</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662367</id>
	<title>Re:What do they hope to accomplish?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247343720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bigotry is pathetic and wrong, but I think what the bigots are trying to accomplish with hate speech is pretty clear.  They believe their targeted group(s) are to blame for some kind of societal ill.  Given that perspective, censuring, sanctioning or expelling the target group would make life better for everyone else.  Since the bigots have already de-humanized the targets of their hate any ill that befalls those people doesn't matter.</p><p>Sadly, I'd also have to say that spouting vitriolic hate has historically been effective in promoting change towards more institutionalized hate, or in maintaining existing discrimination within a system.  Just look at every instance of state-sponsored or culturally accepted hate.  A steady stream of propaganda does work.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bigotry is pathetic and wrong , but I think what the bigots are trying to accomplish with hate speech is pretty clear .
They believe their targeted group ( s ) are to blame for some kind of societal ill. Given that perspective , censuring , sanctioning or expelling the target group would make life better for everyone else .
Since the bigots have already de-humanized the targets of their hate any ill that befalls those people does n't matter.Sadly , I 'd also have to say that spouting vitriolic hate has historically been effective in promoting change towards more institutionalized hate , or in maintaining existing discrimination within a system .
Just look at every instance of state-sponsored or culturally accepted hate .
A steady stream of propaganda does work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bigotry is pathetic and wrong, but I think what the bigots are trying to accomplish with hate speech is pretty clear.
They believe their targeted group(s) are to blame for some kind of societal ill.  Given that perspective, censuring, sanctioning or expelling the target group would make life better for everyone else.
Since the bigots have already de-humanized the targets of their hate any ill that befalls those people doesn't matter.Sadly, I'd also have to say that spouting vitriolic hate has historically been effective in promoting change towards more institutionalized hate, or in maintaining existing discrimination within a system.
Just look at every instance of state-sponsored or culturally accepted hate.
A steady stream of propaganda does work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661951</id>
	<title>God forbid they meet Annonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247341020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's an internet hate machine, you know. [ <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY</a> [youtube.com] ]</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's an internet hate machine , you know .
[ http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = DNO6G4ApJQY [ youtube.com ] ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's an internet hate machine, you know.
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNO6G4ApJQY [youtube.com] ]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</id>
	<title>Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>BlueParrot</author>
	<datestamp>1247304300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whenever somebody makes the nonsensical claim that it is unacceptable to censor racist or homophobic propaganda because it is a free speech issue, consider the following examples.</p><p>1: You're not allowed to harass people, even if you do so by speaking.</p><p>3: You're not allowed to tell people lies in order to make them agree to things they otherwise would not ( i.e fraud ).</p><p>4: You are not allowed to print untrue stories that may damage somebody's reputation ( i.e libel ).</p><p>5: You're not allowed to damage people's reputation by spreading lies about them ( i.e slander )</p><p>The main problem with the laws against racism and homophobia is that they have been poorly named. They should have called it "The protection against harassment of minorities act" or something like it. As with all other liberties your freedom ends where mine begins, and just like freedom of movement does not entitle you to sleep in my front-yard, nor does freedom of speech entitle you to spread lies about my sexual orientation. If you seriously think that freedom of speech gives you a right to lie about and harass people, then I'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works and you may just find that a lot of people with disagree with you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whenever somebody makes the nonsensical claim that it is unacceptable to censor racist or homophobic propaganda because it is a free speech issue , consider the following examples.1 : You 're not allowed to harass people , even if you do so by speaking.3 : You 're not allowed to tell people lies in order to make them agree to things they otherwise would not ( i.e fraud ) .4 : You are not allowed to print untrue stories that may damage somebody 's reputation ( i.e libel ) .5 : You 're not allowed to damage people 's reputation by spreading lies about them ( i.e slander ) The main problem with the laws against racism and homophobia is that they have been poorly named .
They should have called it " The protection against harassment of minorities act " or something like it .
As with all other liberties your freedom ends where mine begins , and just like freedom of movement does not entitle you to sleep in my front-yard , nor does freedom of speech entitle you to spread lies about my sexual orientation .
If you seriously think that freedom of speech gives you a right to lie about and harass people , then I 'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works and you may just find that a lot of people with disagree with you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whenever somebody makes the nonsensical claim that it is unacceptable to censor racist or homophobic propaganda because it is a free speech issue, consider the following examples.1: You're not allowed to harass people, even if you do so by speaking.3: You're not allowed to tell people lies in order to make them agree to things they otherwise would not ( i.e fraud ).4: You are not allowed to print untrue stories that may damage somebody's reputation ( i.e libel ).5: You're not allowed to damage people's reputation by spreading lies about them ( i.e slander )The main problem with the laws against racism and homophobia is that they have been poorly named.
They should have called it "The protection against harassment of minorities act" or something like it.
As with all other liberties your freedom ends where mine begins, and just like freedom of movement does not entitle you to sleep in my front-yard, nor does freedom of speech entitle you to spread lies about my sexual orientation.
If you seriously think that freedom of speech gives you a right to lie about and harass people, then I'm afraid you have a rather naive idea of how the world works and you may just find that a lot of people with disagree with you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28671199</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>t0rkm3</author>
	<datestamp>1247405640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1: You're not allowed to harass people, even if you do so by speaking.</p><p>3: You're not allowed to tell people lies in order to make them agree to things they otherwise would not ( i.e fraud ).</p><p>4: You are not allowed to print untrue stories that may damage somebody's reputation ( i.e libel ).</p><p>5: You're not allowed to damage people's reputation by spreading lies about them ( i.e slander )</p></div><p>Hrmmm... I think your understanding of the legal system is flawed. you are allowed to do all of those unless actual harm or the reasonable fear of harm can be proven.</p><p>1. Unless the person reasonable fear harm or you can demonstrate damages... Not quite a limit on speech. (Although this is the one where a sympathetic judge can help you a lot.)</p><p>2. The problem with fraud is the monetary damages. You are not being punished for lying to someone... that's beyond the court's purview. You are being punished for exchanging something that was not worth what you said it was. Not quite the same thing.</p><p>3. Again, monetary damages must be shown. I can print all I want about you that is untrue, your eyes are blue when they are brown, until you prove that I cost you money by doing so... You are shit out of luck.</p><p>4. Please see item three and apply to the spoken word.</p><p>Whether or not people think the laws protect you from lie is irrelevant. Research each of the above scenarios and you might be surprised about what the law actually does.</p><p>I actually think that the ability to lie and get away with it... Either to the govt or to anyone in a position of power is a pretty fair measure of how free a society truly is.</p><p>Maybe I've had too many beers... This imperial stout stuff is goood.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 : You 're not allowed to harass people , even if you do so by speaking.3 : You 're not allowed to tell people lies in order to make them agree to things they otherwise would not ( i.e fraud ) .4 : You are not allowed to print untrue stories that may damage somebody 's reputation ( i.e libel ) .5 : You 're not allowed to damage people 's reputation by spreading lies about them ( i.e slander ) Hrmmm... I think your understanding of the legal system is flawed .
you are allowed to do all of those unless actual harm or the reasonable fear of harm can be proven.1 .
Unless the person reasonable fear harm or you can demonstrate damages... Not quite a limit on speech .
( Although this is the one where a sympathetic judge can help you a lot. ) 2 .
The problem with fraud is the monetary damages .
You are not being punished for lying to someone... that 's beyond the court 's purview .
You are being punished for exchanging something that was not worth what you said it was .
Not quite the same thing.3 .
Again , monetary damages must be shown .
I can print all I want about you that is untrue , your eyes are blue when they are brown , until you prove that I cost you money by doing so... You are shit out of luck.4 .
Please see item three and apply to the spoken word.Whether or not people think the laws protect you from lie is irrelevant .
Research each of the above scenarios and you might be surprised about what the law actually does.I actually think that the ability to lie and get away with it... Either to the govt or to anyone in a position of power is a pretty fair measure of how free a society truly is.Maybe I 've had too many beers... This imperial stout stuff is goood .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1: You're not allowed to harass people, even if you do so by speaking.3: You're not allowed to tell people lies in order to make them agree to things they otherwise would not ( i.e fraud ).4: You are not allowed to print untrue stories that may damage somebody's reputation ( i.e libel ).5: You're not allowed to damage people's reputation by spreading lies about them ( i.e slander )Hrmmm... I think your understanding of the legal system is flawed.
you are allowed to do all of those unless actual harm or the reasonable fear of harm can be proven.1.
Unless the person reasonable fear harm or you can demonstrate damages... Not quite a limit on speech.
(Although this is the one where a sympathetic judge can help you a lot.)2.
The problem with fraud is the monetary damages.
You are not being punished for lying to someone... that's beyond the court's purview.
You are being punished for exchanging something that was not worth what you said it was.
Not quite the same thing.3.
Again, monetary damages must be shown.
I can print all I want about you that is untrue, your eyes are blue when they are brown, until you prove that I cost you money by doing so... You are shit out of luck.4.
Please see item three and apply to the spoken word.Whether or not people think the laws protect you from lie is irrelevant.
Research each of the above scenarios and you might be surprised about what the law actually does.I actually think that the ability to lie and get away with it... Either to the govt or to anyone in a position of power is a pretty fair measure of how free a society truly is.Maybe I've had too many beers... This imperial stout stuff is goood.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662553</id>
	<title>Re:assumption</title>
	<author>sumdumass</author>
	<datestamp>1247344860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>(Of course, since many European nations have outlawed hate speech, I wonder when people start suing Christian churches, given how much Christianity preaches hate and discrimination.)</i></p></div> </blockquote><p> That's interesting as a blanket statement. I have never seen any Christian church preach hate and discrimination except for Obama's church which I would really call a christian church (they believe the only those who have suffered in some way get into heaven or some shit like that).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( Of course , since many European nations have outlawed hate speech , I wonder when people start suing Christian churches , given how much Christianity preaches hate and discrimination .
) That 's interesting as a blanket statement .
I have never seen any Christian church preach hate and discrimination except for Obama 's church which I would really call a christian church ( they believe the only those who have suffered in some way get into heaven or some shit like that ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> (Of course, since many European nations have outlawed hate speech, I wonder when people start suing Christian churches, given how much Christianity preaches hate and discrimination.
)  That's interesting as a blanket statement.
I have never seen any Christian church preach hate and discrimination except for Obama's church which I would really call a christian church (they believe the only those who have suffered in some way get into heaven or some shit like that).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662397</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662273</id>
	<title>Re:Point of Origin?</title>
	<author>Cederic</author>
	<datestamp>1247343120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They were published from the UK to servers in the US.</p><p>The leaflets/pamphlets weren't exactly being handed out in LA either...</p><p>It's not as though US citizens were extradited to the UK despite having committed no US crimes or committed crimes while in the territories of the UK. Shame for Gary McKimmon that the US authorities aren't similarly restrained.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They were published from the UK to servers in the US.The leaflets/pamphlets were n't exactly being handed out in LA either...It 's not as though US citizens were extradited to the UK despite having committed no US crimes or committed crimes while in the territories of the UK .
Shame for Gary McKimmon that the US authorities are n't similarly restrained .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They were published from the UK to servers in the US.The leaflets/pamphlets weren't exactly being handed out in LA either...It's not as though US citizens were extradited to the UK despite having committed no US crimes or committed crimes while in the territories of the UK.
Shame for Gary McKimmon that the US authorities aren't similarly restrained.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662977</id>
	<title>PassThe Bromide, Please</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247305260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>If you can't say something other people don't want to hear, you do not have free speech.</i> </p><p>The first amendment did not end prosecutions for libel and slander.</p><p> Truth as a defense is a late comer in American law and may not be available elsewhere: on the ground that the libel is needlessly provocative and dangerous to the public peace and order.</p><p>It's this line of thinking that leads to the conclusion that you can't be allowed to falsely and maliciously shout "Fire! in a crowded theater.</p><p>Why you can't be permitted to outshout other speakers or hog the microphone at the town meeting.</p><p>Free speech is one of our society's core values.</p><p> But we value other things no less highly - and this can be difficult for a geek, who tends - like an adolescent - to think in terms of absolutes: black and white, good and evil, all or nothing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't say something other people do n't want to hear , you do not have free speech .
The first amendment did not end prosecutions for libel and slander .
Truth as a defense is a late comer in American law and may not be available elsewhere : on the ground that the libel is needlessly provocative and dangerous to the public peace and order.It 's this line of thinking that leads to the conclusion that you ca n't be allowed to falsely and maliciously shout " Fire !
in a crowded theater.Why you ca n't be permitted to outshout other speakers or hog the microphone at the town meeting.Free speech is one of our society 's core values .
But we value other things no less highly - and this can be difficult for a geek , who tends - like an adolescent - to think in terms of absolutes : black and white , good and evil , all or nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't say something other people don't want to hear, you do not have free speech.
The first amendment did not end prosecutions for libel and slander.
Truth as a defense is a late comer in American law and may not be available elsewhere: on the ground that the libel is needlessly provocative and dangerous to the public peace and order.It's this line of thinking that leads to the conclusion that you can't be allowed to falsely and maliciously shout "Fire!
in a crowded theater.Why you can't be permitted to outshout other speakers or hog the microphone at the town meeting.Free speech is one of our society's core values.
But we value other things no less highly - and this can be difficult for a geek, who tends - like an adolescent - to think in terms of absolutes: black and white, good and evil, all or nothing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664101</id>
	<title>Holocaustianity</title>
	<author>Baldrson</author>
	<datestamp>1247314440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There can be no genetic predispositions that vary by race because if that were the case reality itself would be racist and the only way to be realistic would be to be a racist.
<p>
Thank God reality isn't racist! God hates racists. Racism is a sin. Racism is worse than sodomy. Racism is worse than child molestation. Racism is of Hitler, er, I mean Satan himself!
</p><p>
The Jew suffered and died on the death camp for our racism.
</p><p>
Racists should be raped by ethnic gangs in prison and die of AIDS.  This is not cruel and unusual punishment.  It is God's Will.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There can be no genetic predispositions that vary by race because if that were the case reality itself would be racist and the only way to be realistic would be to be a racist .
Thank God reality is n't racist !
God hates racists .
Racism is a sin .
Racism is worse than sodomy .
Racism is worse than child molestation .
Racism is of Hitler , er , I mean Satan himself !
The Jew suffered and died on the death camp for our racism .
Racists should be raped by ethnic gangs in prison and die of AIDS .
This is not cruel and unusual punishment .
It is God 's Will .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There can be no genetic predispositions that vary by race because if that were the case reality itself would be racist and the only way to be realistic would be to be a racist.
Thank God reality isn't racist!
God hates racists.
Racism is a sin.
Racism is worse than sodomy.
Racism is worse than child molestation.
Racism is of Hitler, er, I mean Satan himself!
The Jew suffered and died on the death camp for our racism.
Racists should be raped by ethnic gangs in prison and die of AIDS.
This is not cruel and unusual punishment.
It is God's Will.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664835</id>
	<title>Re:There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" any mo</title>
	<author>HeadlessNotAHorseman</author>
	<datestamp>1247324100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Australians who travel overseas and have sex with underage children can be <a href="http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/TravelBulletins/Helping\_to\_Fight\_Child\_Sex\_Crimes\_Abroad" title="smartraveller.gov.au" rel="nofollow">prosecuted in Australia</a> [smartraveller.gov.au], even though no crime occurred on Australian soil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Australians who travel overseas and have sex with underage children can be prosecuted in Australia [ smartraveller.gov.au ] , even though no crime occurred on Australian soil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australians who travel overseas and have sex with underage children can be prosecuted in Australia [smartraveller.gov.au], even though no crime occurred on Australian soil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663661</id>
	<title>Re:There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" any mo</title>
	<author>spire3661</author>
	<datestamp>1247310180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Already on the books. IT reads something like " it is a felony to travel to foreign countries and do things that are legal there but illegal here". The example given was a business man traveling to somewhere in Indonesia for the purpose of having sex with (according to US law, not local) 'underage' girls.  He was arrested right before boarding his plane. Can you say Pre-crime????</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Already on the books .
IT reads something like " it is a felony to travel to foreign countries and do things that are legal there but illegal here " .
The example given was a business man traveling to somewhere in Indonesia for the purpose of having sex with ( according to US law , not local ) 'underage ' girls .
He was arrested right before boarding his plane .
Can you say Pre-crime ? ? ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Already on the books.
IT reads something like " it is a felony to travel to foreign countries and do things that are legal there but illegal here".
The example given was a business man traveling to somewhere in Indonesia for the purpose of having sex with (according to US law, not local) 'underage' girls.
He was arrested right before boarding his plane.
Can you say Pre-crime???
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662283</id>
	<title>Re:The UK does not have free speech.</title>
	<author>He who knows</author>
	<datestamp>1247343180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you cant protest about issues that are important without a license then you have no free protests. <a href="http://www.repeal-socpa.info/" title="repeal-socpa.info" rel="nofollow">http://www.repeal-socpa.info/</a> [repeal-socpa.info]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you cant protest about issues that are important without a license then you have no free protests .
http : //www.repeal-socpa.info/ [ repeal-socpa.info ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you cant protest about issues that are important without a license then you have no free protests.
http://www.repeal-socpa.info/ [repeal-socpa.info]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663127</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>arethuza</author>
	<datestamp>1247306280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"no boobies on US tv"</p><p>You must admit, he has a point</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" no boobies on US tv " You must admit , he has a point</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"no boobies on US tv"You must admit, he has a point</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662315</id>
	<title>that works so well</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1247343360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Great going, Britain!  As Yugoslavia has shown us, trying to suppress racial hatred through government oppression works really well!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Great going , Britain !
As Yugoslavia has shown us , trying to suppress racial hatred through government oppression works really well !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Great going, Britain!
As Yugoslavia has shown us, trying to suppress racial hatred through government oppression works really well!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662407</id>
	<title>Re:Point of Origin?</title>
	<author>Fzz</author>
	<datestamp>1247343960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction? Are they claiming that because English addresses received the materials that English laws are in play?</i>
<p>
I think the reasoning was probably that they were in England when they published for a British audience.  The act of publishing was done from England (a server itself isn't capable of independent action, at least not in the eyes of the law).
</p><p>
If they'd flown to the US, written the materials there, published them from there, then returned home, I think they would probably have not have been able to be convicted, even if the intended audience was British.
</p><p>
But I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction ?
Are they claiming that because English addresses received the materials that English laws are in play ?
I think the reasoning was probably that they were in England when they published for a British audience .
The act of publishing was done from England ( a server itself is n't capable of independent action , at least not in the eyes of the law ) .
If they 'd flown to the US , written the materials there , published them from there , then returned home , I think they would probably have not have been able to be convicted , even if the intended audience was British .
But I 'm not a lawyer , so do n't take this as legal advice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the materials were published in the US just how can an English court have jurisdiction?
Are they claiming that because English addresses received the materials that English laws are in play?
I think the reasoning was probably that they were in England when they published for a British audience.
The act of publishing was done from England (a server itself isn't capable of independent action, at least not in the eyes of the law).
If they'd flown to the US, written the materials there, published them from there, then returned home, I think they would probably have not have been able to be convicted, even if the intended audience was British.
But I'm not a lawyer, so don't take this as legal advice.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662009</id>
	<title>whats the crime in hate crime?</title>
	<author>biscon</author>
	<datestamp>1247341440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>is it the act of hating someone due to their racial background or sexual orientation which is illegal? or just running your mouth about it?.
if its the former its thought crime and if its the latter its censorship.

I don't believe in hate crime, not because I am a racist or a homofob its just that laws like that tend to be abused.
Besides I like living in a free society where the government doesn't get to decide what I can legally think.</htmltext>
<tokenext>is it the act of hating someone due to their racial background or sexual orientation which is illegal ?
or just running your mouth about it ? .
if its the former its thought crime and if its the latter its censorship .
I do n't believe in hate crime , not because I am a racist or a homofob its just that laws like that tend to be abused .
Besides I like living in a free society where the government does n't get to decide what I can legally think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>is it the act of hating someone due to their racial background or sexual orientation which is illegal?
or just running your mouth about it?.
if its the former its thought crime and if its the latter its censorship.
I don't believe in hate crime, not because I am a racist or a homofob its just that laws like that tend to be abused.
Besides I like living in a free society where the government doesn't get to decide what I can legally think.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662463</id>
	<title>Not for accused fugitives from your closest ally.</title>
	<author>EWAdams</author>
	<datestamp>1247344260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Giving asylum has profound diplomatic consequences. It says to the other country that their human rights record and criminal justice system sucks. That's not something the USA really wants to say to the UK... not if the USA wants any more intelligence or other assistance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Giving asylum has profound diplomatic consequences .
It says to the other country that their human rights record and criminal justice system sucks .
That 's not something the USA really wants to say to the UK... not if the USA wants any more intelligence or other assistance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Giving asylum has profound diplomatic consequences.
It says to the other country that their human rights record and criminal justice system sucks.
That's not something the USA really wants to say to the UK... not if the USA wants any more intelligence or other assistance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121</id>
	<title>There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" any more.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247342220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Israelis arrest (and indeed assassinate) enemies of Israel anywhere they like. Ditto the USA. A California couple publishes porn on the Internet in California, and is tried and convicted in Tennessee, which they have never visited. You can do something in a foreign country that's totally legal there, and your own government will still prosecute you for it -- as these guys did. It's only a matter of time before the USA starts prosecuting American citizens for smoking dope and visiting prostitutes in Amsterdam.</p><p>The fact is, if you publish it on the web, you're liable for it worldwide, regardless of where you are or where the server is. Better get used to it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Israelis arrest ( and indeed assassinate ) enemies of Israel anywhere they like .
Ditto the USA .
A California couple publishes porn on the Internet in California , and is tried and convicted in Tennessee , which they have never visited .
You can do something in a foreign country that 's totally legal there , and your own government will still prosecute you for it -- as these guys did .
It 's only a matter of time before the USA starts prosecuting American citizens for smoking dope and visiting prostitutes in Amsterdam.The fact is , if you publish it on the web , you 're liable for it worldwide , regardless of where you are or where the server is .
Better get used to it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Israelis arrest (and indeed assassinate) enemies of Israel anywhere they like.
Ditto the USA.
A California couple publishes porn on the Internet in California, and is tried and convicted in Tennessee, which they have never visited.
You can do something in a foreign country that's totally legal there, and your own government will still prosecute you for it -- as these guys did.
It's only a matter of time before the USA starts prosecuting American citizens for smoking dope and visiting prostitutes in Amsterdam.The fact is, if you publish it on the web, you're liable for it worldwide, regardless of where you are or where the server is.
Better get used to it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665923</id>
	<title>Re:assumption</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247431080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"That's interesting as a blanket statement. I have never seen any Christian church preach hate and discrimination"</p><p>You think that statements like "Group X is so evil and morally depraved that they will be tortured by fire for all eternity by the ultimate moral authority." isn't hate speech?  It is precisely those kinds of hateful messages that allow people to say "Well, if these people are so depraved and if they suffer for all eternity anyway, it's legitimate to just hurt them right now already."</p><p>Christian churches used to insert "Jews" for "Group X".  Anti-semitism in Europe was a product of Christianity and Christian teaching.  Fortunately, that is now considered hate speech and would probably run afoul of hate speech laws.</p><p>But there are plenty of other groups you can insert for "Group X" where those kinds of statements are considered perfectly legitimate and are a regular part of Christian teaching.  And Christians used to act on this: Jews, Muslims, atheists, homosexuals, scientists, people engaging in premarital sex, illegitimate children, and other people they didn't like were discriminated against, tortured, and even killed.  It's only civil, secular society that finally put a stop to these kinds of abuses.</p><p>Christianity is an intrinsically hateful and intolerant religion, and, if not restrained, acts out its hatred of others.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" That 's interesting as a blanket statement .
I have never seen any Christian church preach hate and discrimination " You think that statements like " Group X is so evil and morally depraved that they will be tortured by fire for all eternity by the ultimate moral authority .
" is n't hate speech ?
It is precisely those kinds of hateful messages that allow people to say " Well , if these people are so depraved and if they suffer for all eternity anyway , it 's legitimate to just hurt them right now already .
" Christian churches used to insert " Jews " for " Group X " .
Anti-semitism in Europe was a product of Christianity and Christian teaching .
Fortunately , that is now considered hate speech and would probably run afoul of hate speech laws.But there are plenty of other groups you can insert for " Group X " where those kinds of statements are considered perfectly legitimate and are a regular part of Christian teaching .
And Christians used to act on this : Jews , Muslims , atheists , homosexuals , scientists , people engaging in premarital sex , illegitimate children , and other people they did n't like were discriminated against , tortured , and even killed .
It 's only civil , secular society that finally put a stop to these kinds of abuses.Christianity is an intrinsically hateful and intolerant religion , and , if not restrained , acts out its hatred of others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"That's interesting as a blanket statement.
I have never seen any Christian church preach hate and discrimination"You think that statements like "Group X is so evil and morally depraved that they will be tortured by fire for all eternity by the ultimate moral authority.
" isn't hate speech?
It is precisely those kinds of hateful messages that allow people to say "Well, if these people are so depraved and if they suffer for all eternity anyway, it's legitimate to just hurt them right now already.
"Christian churches used to insert "Jews" for "Group X".
Anti-semitism in Europe was a product of Christianity and Christian teaching.
Fortunately, that is now considered hate speech and would probably run afoul of hate speech laws.But there are plenty of other groups you can insert for "Group X" where those kinds of statements are considered perfectly legitimate and are a regular part of Christian teaching.
And Christians used to act on this: Jews, Muslims, atheists, homosexuals, scientists, people engaging in premarital sex, illegitimate children, and other people they didn't like were discriminated against, tortured, and even killed.
It's only civil, secular society that finally put a stop to these kinds of abuses.Christianity is an intrinsically hateful and intolerant religion, and, if not restrained, acts out its hatred of others.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662553</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662157</id>
	<title>Visit West Belfast or South Armagh and find out.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247342460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Inciting sectarian hatred is not pointless there. It matters deeply and gets people killed. As it does in those large parts of the world still riven by ethnic, sectarian, and tribal divisions.</p><p>The USA is one of the few countries that can AFFORD freedom of speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Inciting sectarian hatred is not pointless there .
It matters deeply and gets people killed .
As it does in those large parts of the world still riven by ethnic , sectarian , and tribal divisions.The USA is one of the few countries that can AFFORD freedom of speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Inciting sectarian hatred is not pointless there.
It matters deeply and gets people killed.
As it does in those large parts of the world still riven by ethnic, sectarian, and tribal divisions.The USA is one of the few countries that can AFFORD freedom of speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666889</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>C1ivey</author>
	<datestamp>1247408160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And if I start a political party that black people are not allowed to join, is that harassing black people?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And if I start a political party that black people are not allowed to join , is that harassing black people ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if I start a political party that black people are not allowed to join, is that harassing black people?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664879</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>planetoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247324700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>10/10 A++++ expert troll post, will rage again</htmltext>
<tokenext>10/10 A + + + + expert troll post , will rage again</tokentext>
<sentencetext>10/10 A++++ expert troll post, will rage again</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662981</id>
	<title>Re:No Asylum?</title>
	<author>Hutz</author>
	<datestamp>1247305260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They only arrived in the US claiming asylum after they were convicted in their own country.  Asylum is for those who are being "persecuted" not "prosecuted".  They arrived fleeing reasonable justice in their own country, not standing up for their rights.
<br> <br>
If they arrived here before being charged in their country and claimed asylum because they would be persecuted for their views in their own country, maybe they would have a case, but then we could decide, and would probably decide that they were undesirable.  Now they are just fugitives from a country with which we share an extradition treaty.
<br> <br>
If you believe devotedly in human sacrifice and apply to the US (or any other country) for asylum because your country would put you in jail for killing people, you wouldn't get too far.  These two were prosecuted because they broke specific laws of their country.  They knew it was illegal and they tried to evade the law by storing data in another country, while composing it and distributing it within their own country.
<br> <br>
None of this rises to the call of defending free speech.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They only arrived in the US claiming asylum after they were convicted in their own country .
Asylum is for those who are being " persecuted " not " prosecuted " .
They arrived fleeing reasonable justice in their own country , not standing up for their rights .
If they arrived here before being charged in their country and claimed asylum because they would be persecuted for their views in their own country , maybe they would have a case , but then we could decide , and would probably decide that they were undesirable .
Now they are just fugitives from a country with which we share an extradition treaty .
If you believe devotedly in human sacrifice and apply to the US ( or any other country ) for asylum because your country would put you in jail for killing people , you would n't get too far .
These two were prosecuted because they broke specific laws of their country .
They knew it was illegal and they tried to evade the law by storing data in another country , while composing it and distributing it within their own country .
None of this rises to the call of defending free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They only arrived in the US claiming asylum after they were convicted in their own country.
Asylum is for those who are being "persecuted" not "prosecuted".
They arrived fleeing reasonable justice in their own country, not standing up for their rights.
If they arrived here before being charged in their country and claimed asylum because they would be persecuted for their views in their own country, maybe they would have a case, but then we could decide, and would probably decide that they were undesirable.
Now they are just fugitives from a country with which we share an extradition treaty.
If you believe devotedly in human sacrifice and apply to the US (or any other country) for asylum because your country would put you in jail for killing people, you wouldn't get too far.
These two were prosecuted because they broke specific laws of their country.
They knew it was illegal and they tried to evade the law by storing data in another country, while composing it and distributing it within their own country.
None of this rises to the call of defending free speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085</id>
	<title>The UK does not have free speech.</title>
	<author>Bartab</author>
	<datestamp>1247341860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you can't say something other people don't want to hear, you do not have free speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you ca n't say something other people do n't want to hear , you do not have free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you can't say something other people don't want to hear, you do not have free speech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662525</id>
	<title>Re:There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" any mo</title>
	<author>Cruciform</author>
	<datestamp>1247344680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the Brits initiated the action on their home turf and merely stored the information remotely.<br>So to meet your Amsterdam analogy they would need to smoke pot in the US, and fly to Amsterdam to exhale.<br>The prostitute analogy... well, that one get's a little complicated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the Brits initiated the action on their home turf and merely stored the information remotely.So to meet your Amsterdam analogy they would need to smoke pot in the US , and fly to Amsterdam to exhale.The prostitute analogy... well , that one get 's a little complicated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the Brits initiated the action on their home turf and merely stored the information remotely.So to meet your Amsterdam analogy they would need to smoke pot in the US, and fly to Amsterdam to exhale.The prostitute analogy... well, that one get's a little complicated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663737</id>
	<title>Re:There is no guarantee of Free speech in the UK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247310840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can't you stand on Speaker's Corner or something?  Or set up your web server there?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ca n't you stand on Speaker 's Corner or something ?
Or set up your web server there ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can't you stand on Speaker's Corner or something?
Or set up your web server there?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661943</id>
	<title>first</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247340960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>first</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>first</tokentext>
<sentencetext>first</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665483</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>X86Daddy</author>
	<datestamp>1247335020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good points, but I think this is where things get really muddled.  Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are together in the first amendment.  And, from what I hear the "authorities" in several religious organizations declaring openly, I'd say certain types of lies get special protection... and by categorically protecting such lies due to the speakers' conviction of their truth, such sorts of declarations based on ones' convictions, rational or not, true or not, fall into an odd category here in the US.</p><p>Funny enough, any subscriber to any of those religions will think the declarations made by followers of the other religions are false, much like atheists, agnostics, and others will consider most such claims from anyone.</p><p>Freedom of Speech isn't just Freedom of Rational Speech, but I believe this is a good thing.  Stupidity and irrational thought *need* to see the light of day so that they can be shot down, exposed, etc...  I'm glad KKK members and the like can go on Jerry Springer to share their viewpoints.  In places where such talk is flat out banned, that kind of talk is "subversive," "suppressed," "underground," and thereby <strong>romanticized</strong>.  I think the major problem is when, in democratic systems, mob rule shuts down rational speech because the masses find it unpalletable.  I saw this example today: <a href="http://www.inquisitr.com/28336/florida-christians-protest-atheist-billboard-wait-till-you-see-the-sign/" title="inquisitr.com">http://www.inquisitr.com/28336/florida-christians-protest-atheist-billboard-wait-till-you-see-the-sign/</a> [inquisitr.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good points , but I think this is where things get really muddled .
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are together in the first amendment .
And , from what I hear the " authorities " in several religious organizations declaring openly , I 'd say certain types of lies get special protection... and by categorically protecting such lies due to the speakers ' conviction of their truth , such sorts of declarations based on ones ' convictions , rational or not , true or not , fall into an odd category here in the US.Funny enough , any subscriber to any of those religions will think the declarations made by followers of the other religions are false , much like atheists , agnostics , and others will consider most such claims from anyone.Freedom of Speech is n't just Freedom of Rational Speech , but I believe this is a good thing .
Stupidity and irrational thought * need * to see the light of day so that they can be shot down , exposed , etc... I 'm glad KKK members and the like can go on Jerry Springer to share their viewpoints .
In places where such talk is flat out banned , that kind of talk is " subversive , " " suppressed , " " underground , " and thereby romanticized .
I think the major problem is when , in democratic systems , mob rule shuts down rational speech because the masses find it unpalletable .
I saw this example today : http : //www.inquisitr.com/28336/florida-christians-protest-atheist-billboard-wait-till-you-see-the-sign/ [ inquisitr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good points, but I think this is where things get really muddled.
Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion are together in the first amendment.
And, from what I hear the "authorities" in several religious organizations declaring openly, I'd say certain types of lies get special protection... and by categorically protecting such lies due to the speakers' conviction of their truth, such sorts of declarations based on ones' convictions, rational or not, true or not, fall into an odd category here in the US.Funny enough, any subscriber to any of those religions will think the declarations made by followers of the other religions are false, much like atheists, agnostics, and others will consider most such claims from anyone.Freedom of Speech isn't just Freedom of Rational Speech, but I believe this is a good thing.
Stupidity and irrational thought *need* to see the light of day so that they can be shot down, exposed, etc...  I'm glad KKK members and the like can go on Jerry Springer to share their viewpoints.
In places where such talk is flat out banned, that kind of talk is "subversive," "suppressed," "underground," and thereby romanticized.
I think the major problem is when, in democratic systems, mob rule shuts down rational speech because the masses find it unpalletable.
I saw this example today: http://www.inquisitr.com/28336/florida-christians-protest-atheist-billboard-wait-till-you-see-the-sign/ [inquisitr.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663801</id>
	<title>Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1247311440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not surprising that it is posted on Slashdot, because it brings up an important legal point; that the location of the people, not the location of the server, is relevant for deciding jurisdiction.  This is a point that is frequently raised in various discussions on Slashdot.</p><p>
It's also not surprising how many people are defending it.  Slashdot has a large self-identified libertarian readership, where the definition of libertarian appears to be that censorship and oppression are always fine when carried out by private individuals or corporations in positions of power, but not by governments.  There is also a very large population of absolutists, people who believe in certain ideals even in cases where those ideals are obviously wrong (for example, free market evangelists who refuse to accept the idea of a natural monopoly and believe that the invisible hand makes them impossible).  Add to this people who believe in the letter of the constitution of the USA with almost a religious fervour and you get a lot of defenders.  Oh, and let's not forget the people who like to criticise anything in the UK that might possibly be a human rights issue[1] because it makes them feel better about living in the USA.
</p><p>[1] You can spot these easily; they always bring up CCTV cameras, quoting widely-discredited numbers published by a right-wing UK tabloid (by the same methodology, you would calculate the USA having around ten times the camera density of the UK..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not surprising that it is posted on Slashdot , because it brings up an important legal point ; that the location of the people , not the location of the server , is relevant for deciding jurisdiction .
This is a point that is frequently raised in various discussions on Slashdot .
It 's also not surprising how many people are defending it .
Slashdot has a large self-identified libertarian readership , where the definition of libertarian appears to be that censorship and oppression are always fine when carried out by private individuals or corporations in positions of power , but not by governments .
There is also a very large population of absolutists , people who believe in certain ideals even in cases where those ideals are obviously wrong ( for example , free market evangelists who refuse to accept the idea of a natural monopoly and believe that the invisible hand makes them impossible ) .
Add to this people who believe in the letter of the constitution of the USA with almost a religious fervour and you get a lot of defenders .
Oh , and let 's not forget the people who like to criticise anything in the UK that might possibly be a human rights issue [ 1 ] because it makes them feel better about living in the USA .
[ 1 ] You can spot these easily ; they always bring up CCTV cameras , quoting widely-discredited numbers published by a right-wing UK tabloid ( by the same methodology , you would calculate the USA having around ten times the camera density of the UK. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not surprising that it is posted on Slashdot, because it brings up an important legal point; that the location of the people, not the location of the server, is relevant for deciding jurisdiction.
This is a point that is frequently raised in various discussions on Slashdot.
It's also not surprising how many people are defending it.
Slashdot has a large self-identified libertarian readership, where the definition of libertarian appears to be that censorship and oppression are always fine when carried out by private individuals or corporations in positions of power, but not by governments.
There is also a very large population of absolutists, people who believe in certain ideals even in cases where those ideals are obviously wrong (for example, free market evangelists who refuse to accept the idea of a natural monopoly and believe that the invisible hand makes them impossible).
Add to this people who believe in the letter of the constitution of the USA with almost a religious fervour and you get a lot of defenders.
Oh, and let's not forget the people who like to criticise anything in the UK that might possibly be a human rights issue[1] because it makes them feel better about living in the USA.
[1] You can spot these easily; they always bring up CCTV cameras, quoting widely-discredited numbers published by a right-wing UK tabloid (by the same methodology, you would calculate the USA having around ten times the camera density of the UK..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662535</id>
	<title>Orwell was off by about 25 years</title>
	<author>DesScorp</author>
	<datestamp>1247344740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Britain has adapted many of the things Orwell wrote about in his iconic book. The surveillance society, doublespeak, and now, thought crimes. I wonder what George would think of his country so willingly embracing all the things he tried to warn them about?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Britain has adapted many of the things Orwell wrote about in his iconic book .
The surveillance society , doublespeak , and now , thought crimes .
I wonder what George would think of his country so willingly embracing all the things he tried to warn them about ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Britain has adapted many of the things Orwell wrote about in his iconic book.
The surveillance society, doublespeak, and now, thought crimes.
I wonder what George would think of his country so willingly embracing all the things he tried to warn them about?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662617</id>
	<title>Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247345340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Additionally, try burning an Union Jack in the UK and then the Stars and Strips in the USA.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Additionally , try burning an Union Jack in the UK and then the Stars and Strips in the USA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Additionally, try burning an Union Jack in the UK and then the Stars and Strips in the USA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664711</id>
	<title>Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.</title>
	<author>TeXMaster</author>
	<datestamp>1247322180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Freedom of speech" in the US doesn't mean you can say whatever you want either. If you endanger other people by what you say (e.g. shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, incite others to murder, violence) there are consequences</p></div><p>Uh, that's exactly what hate speech is: inciting others to violence against a particular group of people (generally of another race and/or religion).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Freedom of speech " in the US does n't mean you can say whatever you want either .
If you endanger other people by what you say ( e.g .
shout " fire " in a crowded theatre , incite others to murder , violence ) there are consequencesUh , that 's exactly what hate speech is : inciting others to violence against a particular group of people ( generally of another race and/or religion ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Freedom of speech" in the US doesn't mean you can say whatever you want either.
If you endanger other people by what you say (e.g.
shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, incite others to murder, violence) there are consequencesUh, that's exactly what hate speech is: inciting others to violence against a particular group of people (generally of another race and/or religion).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664493</id>
	<title>why assume no one here is a target?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247318460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you assume that no one on Slashdot is the target of hate speech?

</p><p>I expect that many are, and in many cases are being attacked by their own governments, especially in the United States and Britain.

</p><p>Free speech is only free if unpopular views are allowed to be expressed.  No laws are required to ensure that subjects can parrot the views of their rulers.

</p><p>And you, sir, are an ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you assume that no one on Slashdot is the target of hate speech ?
I expect that many are , and in many cases are being attacked by their own governments , especially in the United States and Britain .
Free speech is only free if unpopular views are allowed to be expressed .
No laws are required to ensure that subjects can parrot the views of their rulers .
And you , sir , are an ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you assume that no one on Slashdot is the target of hate speech?
I expect that many are, and in many cases are being attacked by their own governments, especially in the United States and Britain.
Free speech is only free if unpopular views are allowed to be expressed.
No laws are required to ensure that subjects can parrot the views of their rulers.
And you, sir, are an ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663349</id>
	<title>Old Testament API is deprecated</title>
	<author>masmullin</author>
	<datestamp>1247308020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Old Testament API was deprecated by Jesus' teachings.<br><br>You can still make the calls to the Leviticus module, but dont expect them to be supported anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Old Testament API was deprecated by Jesus ' teachings.You can still make the calls to the Leviticus module , but dont expect them to be supported anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Old Testament API was deprecated by Jesus' teachings.You can still make the calls to the Leviticus module, but dont expect them to be supported anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662761</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666895</id>
	<title>Re:Old Testament API is deprecated</title>
	<author>KudyardRipling</author>
	<datestamp>1247408280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I like the analogy. However, there seems to be a bug:</p><p>
&nbsp; "I have not come to abolish Torah; I have come to bring it to the goal." Matthew 5:17.</p><p>What has been called here as the "Old Testament API" is actually a body of casuistry that was eventually condensed to writing as the Mishna, Gemarot (Bavli &amp; Yerushalmi), Baraitot (Mishna-era teachings that were not included in the Mishna that are found in the Gemarot), Tosefot/Tosefta, etc. In Yeshua's day , it was two competing API's, namely Hillel and Shammai. The post-apostolic figures in Christendom corrupted its API, infecting it with the virus of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersessionism" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">supersessionism</a> [wikipedia.org] that gave it the appearance of deprecation. I heartily suggest reading Pirke Avot alongside the New Testament. Expect headspin.</p><p>The Jewish world hooks into the Talmud (Mishna &amp; Gemarot)and Halakhah. The Christian world hooks into the Apostolic documents (New Testament) and Tradition (patristics and later works).</p><p>As for the immediate parent comment, the proper approach is that the Christian must deal with the writers of the Epistles because these were letters written in response to various issues arising in the communities so addressed. In Judaism, this is called 'Responsa'.</p><p>'Tis like System V &amp; BSD, rugby league &amp; gridiron. These have different rules, but the game is the same.</p><p>To close the thought in a manner consistent with the subject of the article, there are behaviors that are opposed by the tenets of the Abrahamic continuum. There are those adherents withtin this realm who fear that to tolerate the existence of moral deviants (by not engaging in violence directed at the same) is to invite the negative attention of the Divine. These fear that the negative attention of the Divine will hurt everyone. Therefore it stands to reason in the minds of these that it would be better that the deviant group be pressured to change their behavior than to have everyone suffer.</p><p>For those who know what time it is, come and hear. In this weeks episode, Pinchas accidently invents the club sandwich, complete with... toothpick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I like the analogy .
However , there seems to be a bug :   " I have not come to abolish Torah ; I have come to bring it to the goal .
" Matthew 5 : 17.What has been called here as the " Old Testament API " is actually a body of casuistry that was eventually condensed to writing as the Mishna , Gemarot ( Bavli &amp; Yerushalmi ) , Baraitot ( Mishna-era teachings that were not included in the Mishna that are found in the Gemarot ) , Tosefot/Tosefta , etc .
In Yeshua 's day , it was two competing API 's , namely Hillel and Shammai .
The post-apostolic figures in Christendom corrupted its API , infecting it with the virus of supersessionism [ wikipedia.org ] that gave it the appearance of deprecation .
I heartily suggest reading Pirke Avot alongside the New Testament .
Expect headspin.The Jewish world hooks into the Talmud ( Mishna &amp; Gemarot ) and Halakhah .
The Christian world hooks into the Apostolic documents ( New Testament ) and Tradition ( patristics and later works ) .As for the immediate parent comment , the proper approach is that the Christian must deal with the writers of the Epistles because these were letters written in response to various issues arising in the communities so addressed .
In Judaism , this is called 'Responsa' .
'T is like System V &amp; BSD , rugby league &amp; gridiron .
These have different rules , but the game is the same.To close the thought in a manner consistent with the subject of the article , there are behaviors that are opposed by the tenets of the Abrahamic continuum .
There are those adherents withtin this realm who fear that to tolerate the existence of moral deviants ( by not engaging in violence directed at the same ) is to invite the negative attention of the Divine .
These fear that the negative attention of the Divine will hurt everyone .
Therefore it stands to reason in the minds of these that it would be better that the deviant group be pressured to change their behavior than to have everyone suffer.For those who know what time it is , come and hear .
In this weeks episode , Pinchas accidently invents the club sandwich , complete with... toothpick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I like the analogy.
However, there seems to be a bug:
  "I have not come to abolish Torah; I have come to bring it to the goal.
" Matthew 5:17.What has been called here as the "Old Testament API" is actually a body of casuistry that was eventually condensed to writing as the Mishna, Gemarot (Bavli &amp; Yerushalmi), Baraitot (Mishna-era teachings that were not included in the Mishna that are found in the Gemarot), Tosefot/Tosefta, etc.
In Yeshua's day , it was two competing API's, namely Hillel and Shammai.
The post-apostolic figures in Christendom corrupted its API, infecting it with the virus of supersessionism [wikipedia.org] that gave it the appearance of deprecation.
I heartily suggest reading Pirke Avot alongside the New Testament.
Expect headspin.The Jewish world hooks into the Talmud (Mishna &amp; Gemarot)and Halakhah.
The Christian world hooks into the Apostolic documents (New Testament) and Tradition (patristics and later works).As for the immediate parent comment, the proper approach is that the Christian must deal with the writers of the Epistles because these were letters written in response to various issues arising in the communities so addressed.
In Judaism, this is called 'Responsa'.
'Tis like System V &amp; BSD, rugby league &amp; gridiron.
These have different rules, but the game is the same.To close the thought in a manner consistent with the subject of the article, there are behaviors that are opposed by the tenets of the Abrahamic continuum.
There are those adherents withtin this realm who fear that to tolerate the existence of moral deviants (by not engaging in violence directed at the same) is to invite the negative attention of the Divine.
These fear that the negative attention of the Divine will hurt everyone.
Therefore it stands to reason in the minds of these that it would be better that the deviant group be pressured to change their behavior than to have everyone suffer.For those who know what time it is, come and hear.
In this weeks episode, Pinchas accidently invents the club sandwich, complete with... toothpick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662683</id>
	<title>Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.</title>
	<author>MindlessAutomata</author>
	<datestamp>1247345940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because you may be liable for damages for causing panic, you therefore conclude... freedom of speech is unnecessary? What?  I have the right to swing a bat around but not in a manner that will result it coming in contact with someone's face.  Freedom of speech is the same way, as with any other right.</p><p>The fact that you say freedom of speech isn't a right is pretty disgusting.  You literally do not believe in freedom of speech, no matter what you're going to claim.  I understand this is a very "progressive" take on the manner but I do not feel that "progressive" politics is a very good thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because you may be liable for damages for causing panic , you therefore conclude... freedom of speech is unnecessary ?
What ? I have the right to swing a bat around but not in a manner that will result it coming in contact with someone 's face .
Freedom of speech is the same way , as with any other right.The fact that you say freedom of speech is n't a right is pretty disgusting .
You literally do not believe in freedom of speech , no matter what you 're going to claim .
I understand this is a very " progressive " take on the manner but I do not feel that " progressive " politics is a very good thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because you may be liable for damages for causing panic, you therefore conclude... freedom of speech is unnecessary?
What?  I have the right to swing a bat around but not in a manner that will result it coming in contact with someone's face.
Freedom of speech is the same way, as with any other right.The fact that you say freedom of speech isn't a right is pretty disgusting.
You literally do not believe in freedom of speech, no matter what you're going to claim.
I understand this is a very "progressive" take on the manner but I do not feel that "progressive" politics is a very good thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662435</id>
	<title>Distinctions</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247344020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hate crime occurs when harm comes to the person or group that one is prejudiced against. The law does not tell you what you can think, or what you can say, only that you cannot harm anyone else by your words or actions. Many of the posts here confuse this and unreasonably lash out against the government telling you what you can think or say, when it reality, reasonable people can distinguish between stupid harmless comments and real crime. I know, because I'm gay, and i can say firsthand that there is a distinct, discernable line that you cannot cross. I don't care what you think about me, I don't care what you say to your friends, but it starts to become and issue when your words affect other people's interpretations of me, or even worse, make me feel threatened.</p><p>Again, the law is there to protect people. In this case, posting something on the internet, in my opinion, does not deserve the punishment these men received. If they had come up to people of another race in person on the street and said these things, the determining factor about whether or not they commited a crime is the same as any kind of harassment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hate crime occurs when harm comes to the person or group that one is prejudiced against .
The law does not tell you what you can think , or what you can say , only that you can not harm anyone else by your words or actions .
Many of the posts here confuse this and unreasonably lash out against the government telling you what you can think or say , when it reality , reasonable people can distinguish between stupid harmless comments and real crime .
I know , because I 'm gay , and i can say firsthand that there is a distinct , discernable line that you can not cross .
I do n't care what you think about me , I do n't care what you say to your friends , but it starts to become and issue when your words affect other people 's interpretations of me , or even worse , make me feel threatened.Again , the law is there to protect people .
In this case , posting something on the internet , in my opinion , does not deserve the punishment these men received .
If they had come up to people of another race in person on the street and said these things , the determining factor about whether or not they commited a crime is the same as any kind of harassment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hate crime occurs when harm comes to the person or group that one is prejudiced against.
The law does not tell you what you can think, or what you can say, only that you cannot harm anyone else by your words or actions.
Many of the posts here confuse this and unreasonably lash out against the government telling you what you can think or say, when it reality, reasonable people can distinguish between stupid harmless comments and real crime.
I know, because I'm gay, and i can say firsthand that there is a distinct, discernable line that you cannot cross.
I don't care what you think about me, I don't care what you say to your friends, but it starts to become and issue when your words affect other people's interpretations of me, or even worse, make me feel threatened.Again, the law is there to protect people.
In this case, posting something on the internet, in my opinion, does not deserve the punishment these men received.
If they had come up to people of another race in person on the street and said these things, the determining factor about whether or not they commited a crime is the same as any kind of harassment.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</id>
	<title>!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247342100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Publishing words that incite hatred is not "thoughtcrime". Words are not thoughts. You can think whatever hatred or whatever else you want. But speech is an action, a real act in the world that affects other people. Not all acts, not all speech or expressions, particularly in public, are protected. You do not have the right to speak in a way that harms people. And currently, as always in history, published hate speech forms links in the critical path from protected hateful thoughts to non-protected violent acts that physically harm people. Those links are on the action side of the thought/action boundary.</p><p>You can't tell someone that you're going to kill them and expect to get away with it. You likewise can't threaten everyone who's a member of a group, racial or otherwise, and expect to get away with it. You can think about genocide, but the moment you do something, including organizing or inciting others to carry it out, you've crossed the line. And that's when we have governments to protect us from you, not you from the consequences of your speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Publishing words that incite hatred is not " thoughtcrime " .
Words are not thoughts .
You can think whatever hatred or whatever else you want .
But speech is an action , a real act in the world that affects other people .
Not all acts , not all speech or expressions , particularly in public , are protected .
You do not have the right to speak in a way that harms people .
And currently , as always in history , published hate speech forms links in the critical path from protected hateful thoughts to non-protected violent acts that physically harm people .
Those links are on the action side of the thought/action boundary.You ca n't tell someone that you 're going to kill them and expect to get away with it .
You likewise ca n't threaten everyone who 's a member of a group , racial or otherwise , and expect to get away with it .
You can think about genocide , but the moment you do something , including organizing or inciting others to carry it out , you 've crossed the line .
And that 's when we have governments to protect us from you , not you from the consequences of your speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Publishing words that incite hatred is not "thoughtcrime".
Words are not thoughts.
You can think whatever hatred or whatever else you want.
But speech is an action, a real act in the world that affects other people.
Not all acts, not all speech or expressions, particularly in public, are protected.
You do not have the right to speak in a way that harms people.
And currently, as always in history, published hate speech forms links in the critical path from protected hateful thoughts to non-protected violent acts that physically harm people.
Those links are on the action side of the thought/action boundary.You can't tell someone that you're going to kill them and expect to get away with it.
You likewise can't threaten everyone who's a member of a group, racial or otherwise, and expect to get away with it.
You can think about genocide, but the moment you do something, including organizing or inciting others to carry it out, you've crossed the line.
And that's when we have governments to protect us from you, not you from the consequences of your speech.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664161</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>Dr Damage I</author>
	<datestamp>1247315040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem with hate speech laws is not that they have been poorly named.  It is that they do not provide equal protection.  (Also, they're downright evil.  But that's not really germane here)<br>
Laws forbidding harassment protect me just as well as they protect minorities. <br>
Laws forbidding fraud protect me just as well as they protect minorities.  <br>
Laws forbidding libel protect me just as well as they protect minorities.  <br>
Laws forbidding slander protect me just as well as they protect minorities<br> <br>

Laws forbidding hatred do not protect me at all.  They fail to protect me regardless of whether anyone hates me or not.  Lets not continue kidding ourselves, racism is part of the human condition, not a defect exclusive to people with a melanin deficiency.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem with hate speech laws is not that they have been poorly named .
It is that they do not provide equal protection .
( Also , they 're downright evil .
But that 's not really germane here ) Laws forbidding harassment protect me just as well as they protect minorities .
Laws forbidding fraud protect me just as well as they protect minorities .
Laws forbidding libel protect me just as well as they protect minorities .
Laws forbidding slander protect me just as well as they protect minorities Laws forbidding hatred do not protect me at all .
They fail to protect me regardless of whether anyone hates me or not .
Lets not continue kidding ourselves , racism is part of the human condition , not a defect exclusive to people with a melanin deficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem with hate speech laws is not that they have been poorly named.
It is that they do not provide equal protection.
(Also, they're downright evil.
But that's not really germane here)
Laws forbidding harassment protect me just as well as they protect minorities.
Laws forbidding fraud protect me just as well as they protect minorities.
Laws forbidding libel protect me just as well as they protect minorities.
Laws forbidding slander protect me just as well as they protect minorities 

Laws forbidding hatred do not protect me at all.
They fail to protect me regardless of whether anyone hates me or not.
Lets not continue kidding ourselves, racism is part of the human condition, not a defect exclusive to people with a melanin deficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662421</id>
	<title>Pfff</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1247344020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>An american recently kidnapped a dutch kid in a custody case. The was an alert out (copied for the american missing child system) that is supposed to make all airports and such look out for the kid across europe. Didn't work.
</p><p>Borders are leaky as hell where board guards are asked to look at old tech passports and sort out of ten of thousand of passengers those appearing on a list with thousands of others. Exactly how is this supposed to work? It is like expecting a cop to watch 3-4 highways at once and pick out all stolen cars that have been reported.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>An american recently kidnapped a dutch kid in a custody case .
The was an alert out ( copied for the american missing child system ) that is supposed to make all airports and such look out for the kid across europe .
Did n't work .
Borders are leaky as hell where board guards are asked to look at old tech passports and sort out of ten of thousand of passengers those appearing on a list with thousands of others .
Exactly how is this supposed to work ?
It is like expecting a cop to watch 3-4 highways at once and pick out all stolen cars that have been reported .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>An american recently kidnapped a dutch kid in a custody case.
The was an alert out (copied for the american missing child system) that is supposed to make all airports and such look out for the kid across europe.
Didn't work.
Borders are leaky as hell where board guards are asked to look at old tech passports and sort out of ten of thousand of passengers those appearing on a list with thousands of others.
Exactly how is this supposed to work?
It is like expecting a cop to watch 3-4 highways at once and pick out all stolen cars that have been reported.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28742021</id>
	<title>Re:The UK does not have free speech.</title>
	<author>jawahar</author>
	<datestamp>1247942580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>free speech != irresponsible speech</htmltext>
<tokenext>free speech ! = irresponsible speech</tokentext>
<sentencetext>free speech != irresponsible speech</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664251</id>
	<title>Re:What do they hope to accomplish?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247315940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah, it is definitely because of spoken racial bigotry that other people decide to do racist things.  I bet you think that violent video games cause crime too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , it is definitely because of spoken racial bigotry that other people decide to do racist things .
I bet you think that violent video games cause crime too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, it is definitely because of spoken racial bigotry that other people decide to do racist things.
I bet you think that violent video games cause crime too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662443</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662459</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid they meet Annonymous</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247344260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see what you did there...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see what you did there.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see what you did there...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663835</id>
	<title>Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1247311920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Burning the flag in the USA was a very important test case in the Supreme Court last century when one state (Texas, as I recall) made it illegal and it was ruled unconstitutional.  Burning the flag in the UK?  I can't imagine anyone caring.  I've never seen anyone do it, but then I've seen far fewer union jacks displayed in the UK than stars-and-stripes in the USA, so maybe people just don't have them to hand when they want to burn something...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Burning the flag in the USA was a very important test case in the Supreme Court last century when one state ( Texas , as I recall ) made it illegal and it was ruled unconstitutional .
Burning the flag in the UK ?
I ca n't imagine anyone caring .
I 've never seen anyone do it , but then I 've seen far fewer union jacks displayed in the UK than stars-and-stripes in the USA , so maybe people just do n't have them to hand when they want to burn something.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Burning the flag in the USA was a very important test case in the Supreme Court last century when one state (Texas, as I recall) made it illegal and it was ruled unconstitutional.
Burning the flag in the UK?
I can't imagine anyone caring.
I've never seen anyone do it, but then I've seen far fewer union jacks displayed in the UK than stars-and-stripes in the USA, so maybe people just don't have them to hand when they want to burn something...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662617</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662445</id>
	<title>Re:!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247344080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;You likewise can't threaten everyone who's a member of a group, racial or otherwise, and expect to get away with it.</p><p>of course you can in the UK: you just have to be a muslim to do it.</p><p>Heck, you can incite crowds to murder those that 'offend' your own caveman beliefs and get very lucrative jobs in the british govt.</p><p>Seriously, live in the UK and see how 'tolerant' we are of certain behaviour from certain groups and not from others.</p><p>People notice this and it fuels their hatred at the hypocrisy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; You likewise ca n't threaten everyone who 's a member of a group , racial or otherwise , and expect to get away with it.of course you can in the UK : you just have to be a muslim to do it.Heck , you can incite crowds to murder those that 'offend ' your own caveman beliefs and get very lucrative jobs in the british govt.Seriously , live in the UK and see how 'tolerant ' we are of certain behaviour from certain groups and not from others.People notice this and it fuels their hatred at the hypocrisy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;You likewise can't threaten everyone who's a member of a group, racial or otherwise, and expect to get away with it.of course you can in the UK: you just have to be a muslim to do it.Heck, you can incite crowds to murder those that 'offend' your own caveman beliefs and get very lucrative jobs in the british govt.Seriously, live in the UK and see how 'tolerant' we are of certain behaviour from certain groups and not from others.People notice this and it fuels their hatred at the hypocrisy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665093</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247328900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For one, I'd like to know the basis of your racist, bigoted, sexist conclusion of "white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male"?    Do you have a problem with people is that group?  Or do you just lump anyone that has a different opinion from you in that group?  Is that some sort of "hate speech" or "thought".. do you think less of those types of people than "Black, Jewish, Bisexual, Upperclass females"?</p><p>"I am fairly willing to bet that the majority of free speech spouters on slashdot would change their tune VERY quickly if they were the subject of a hate attack."</p><p>You are again making generalizations with no basis.  and what is What is "Hate Attack" anyways?</p><p>As for people of the United States vs European ideals of liberal government and Individual freedom and responsibilities, I would kindly suggest that most Europeans and Europe as a culture/society has had  too little experience to be credible.  Germany and Italy didn't exist as a nation state until 1870's.  There was no "democracy" until after WWII.  France first attempt at a liberal nation created a lot of "fun" for Europe for 20 years, and we won't count the "5" republics, Kings, and Vichy government.  And it may be difficult to take too seriously countries that still need the emotional Icon of a Queen or King to hold the country together.  We won't comment that France, Belguim, Portugul and the Dutch still had a very difficult time letting go of their<br>"Slave colonies" whose exploitation still impacts 100's of millions of people.  White American's killed white Americans to end slavery in the US in 1800;s.  How many have died over the last 50 years because of the screwed up state that Europe left their colonies.</p><p>Let's all remember that the Nazis were voted into office.  I think it is a case book example of Universal Suffrage should not be birth right.  Both the individual and the society have to be mature enough to handle the responsibilities and obligations.  A simple test of maturity is whether the cultural norm can handle complex thoughts and ideas.  If they can't then they shouldn't be voting..<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... they can't think.  If they can, then stupid thoughts and ideas would be appropriately handled.  If a society has too many immature people that can't handle thoughts and ideas, then I maintain it can never be a true functional republic or democracy.  (And probably a sign that there is something really bad in the water.)  It just a matter of time (a few decades best case) before it collapses.  Look at Africa, Russia, the 20+ countries in the Balkans and central Asia.</p><p>But too many forget that the original idea of US form of government was to constrain government powers, it was not about substituting "Mob" dictatorship for a King.  Freedoms were Natural Rights, not Rights granted to citizens by the Government.  Rights Trump Power.  Europeans have never understood that concept.  Not even the Brits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For one , I 'd like to know the basis of your racist , bigoted , sexist conclusion of " white , christian , hetero-sexual , middle class male " ?
Do you have a problem with people is that group ?
Or do you just lump anyone that has a different opinion from you in that group ?
Is that some sort of " hate speech " or " thought " .. do you think less of those types of people than " Black , Jewish , Bisexual , Upperclass females " ?
" I am fairly willing to bet that the majority of free speech spouters on slashdot would change their tune VERY quickly if they were the subject of a hate attack .
" You are again making generalizations with no basis .
and what is What is " Hate Attack " anyways ? As for people of the United States vs European ideals of liberal government and Individual freedom and responsibilities , I would kindly suggest that most Europeans and Europe as a culture/society has had too little experience to be credible .
Germany and Italy did n't exist as a nation state until 1870 's .
There was no " democracy " until after WWII .
France first attempt at a liberal nation created a lot of " fun " for Europe for 20 years , and we wo n't count the " 5 " republics , Kings , and Vichy government .
And it may be difficult to take too seriously countries that still need the emotional Icon of a Queen or King to hold the country together .
We wo n't comment that France , Belguim , Portugul and the Dutch still had a very difficult time letting go of their " Slave colonies " whose exploitation still impacts 100 's of millions of people .
White American 's killed white Americans to end slavery in the US in 1800 ; s. How many have died over the last 50 years because of the screwed up state that Europe left their colonies.Let 's all remember that the Nazis were voted into office .
I think it is a case book example of Universal Suffrage should not be birth right .
Both the individual and the society have to be mature enough to handle the responsibilities and obligations .
A simple test of maturity is whether the cultural norm can handle complex thoughts and ideas .
If they ca n't then they should n't be voting.. ... they ca n't think .
If they can , then stupid thoughts and ideas would be appropriately handled .
If a society has too many immature people that ca n't handle thoughts and ideas , then I maintain it can never be a true functional republic or democracy .
( And probably a sign that there is something really bad in the water .
) It just a matter of time ( a few decades best case ) before it collapses .
Look at Africa , Russia , the 20 + countries in the Balkans and central Asia.But too many forget that the original idea of US form of government was to constrain government powers , it was not about substituting " Mob " dictatorship for a King .
Freedoms were Natural Rights , not Rights granted to citizens by the Government .
Rights Trump Power .
Europeans have never understood that concept .
Not even the Brits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For one, I'd like to know the basis of your racist, bigoted, sexist conclusion of "white, christian, hetero-sexual, middle class male"?
Do you have a problem with people is that group?
Or do you just lump anyone that has a different opinion from you in that group?
Is that some sort of "hate speech" or "thought".. do you think less of those types of people than "Black, Jewish, Bisexual, Upperclass females"?
"I am fairly willing to bet that the majority of free speech spouters on slashdot would change their tune VERY quickly if they were the subject of a hate attack.
"You are again making generalizations with no basis.
and what is What is "Hate Attack" anyways?As for people of the United States vs European ideals of liberal government and Individual freedom and responsibilities, I would kindly suggest that most Europeans and Europe as a culture/society has had  too little experience to be credible.
Germany and Italy didn't exist as a nation state until 1870's.
There was no "democracy" until after WWII.
France first attempt at a liberal nation created a lot of "fun" for Europe for 20 years, and we won't count the "5" republics, Kings, and Vichy government.
And it may be difficult to take too seriously countries that still need the emotional Icon of a Queen or King to hold the country together.
We won't comment that France, Belguim, Portugul and the Dutch still had a very difficult time letting go of their"Slave colonies" whose exploitation still impacts 100's of millions of people.
White American's killed white Americans to end slavery in the US in 1800;s.  How many have died over the last 50 years because of the screwed up state that Europe left their colonies.Let's all remember that the Nazis were voted into office.
I think it is a case book example of Universal Suffrage should not be birth right.
Both the individual and the society have to be mature enough to handle the responsibilities and obligations.
A simple test of maturity is whether the cultural norm can handle complex thoughts and ideas.
If they can't then they shouldn't be voting.. ... they can't think.
If they can, then stupid thoughts and ideas would be appropriately handled.
If a society has too many immature people that can't handle thoughts and ideas, then I maintain it can never be a true functional republic or democracy.
(And probably a sign that there is something really bad in the water.
)  It just a matter of time (a few decades best case) before it collapses.
Look at Africa, Russia, the 20+ countries in the Balkans and central Asia.But too many forget that the original idea of US form of government was to constrain government powers, it was not about substituting "Mob" dictatorship for a King.
Freedoms were Natural Rights, not Rights granted to citizens by the Government.
Rights Trump Power.
Europeans have never understood that concept.
Not even the Brits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662277</id>
	<title>Re:No Asylum?</title>
	<author>Angostura</author>
	<datestamp>1247343120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the U.S doesn't have perfect freedom of speech either. See "Fire", crowded theatres, <i>passim</i>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the U.S does n't have perfect freedom of speech either .
See " Fire " , crowded theatres , passim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the U.S doesn't have perfect freedom of speech either.
See "Fire", crowded theatres, passim.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663083</id>
	<title>Re:that works so well</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247305980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It worked very well, indeed. Only after Yugoslavia was broken up in little pieces, when there was no government oppression anymore, people started being nationalistic and trying to kill all the others.</p><p>Same thing happened in the ex-USSR republics (the war in Georgia last summer was a perfect example). In the times of USSR there were minor ethnic conflicts but worst thing could happen were some broken noses. After the government suppression was gone azeris started to kill armenians, georgians started to kill abkhasians and ossetins, chechens just started to kill everyone around.</p><p>Seems that government suppression has some good sides after all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It worked very well , indeed .
Only after Yugoslavia was broken up in little pieces , when there was no government oppression anymore , people started being nationalistic and trying to kill all the others.Same thing happened in the ex-USSR republics ( the war in Georgia last summer was a perfect example ) .
In the times of USSR there were minor ethnic conflicts but worst thing could happen were some broken noses .
After the government suppression was gone azeris started to kill armenians , georgians started to kill abkhasians and ossetins , chechens just started to kill everyone around.Seems that government suppression has some good sides after all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It worked very well, indeed.
Only after Yugoslavia was broken up in little pieces, when there was no government oppression anymore, people started being nationalistic and trying to kill all the others.Same thing happened in the ex-USSR republics (the war in Georgia last summer was a perfect example).
In the times of USSR there were minor ethnic conflicts but worst thing could happen were some broken noses.
After the government suppression was gone azeris started to kill armenians, georgians started to kill abkhasians and ossetins, chechens just started to kill everyone around.Seems that government suppression has some good sides after all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662315</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665039</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>BradMajors</author>
	<datestamp>1247327940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... the difference is when you use speech to commit "fraud, libel, and slander" you are prosecuted because you committed "fraud, libel, and slander" and not because of your speech.</p><p>With hate laws there is no need to show the speech was used to commit any other crime and there is no need to show that anyone was harmed by the speech.</p><p>People are not being prosecuted because of the damage they cause but because of who they are and what they think.</p><p>Prosecuting people because of who they are is racism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... the difference is when you use speech to commit " fraud , libel , and slander " you are prosecuted because you committed " fraud , libel , and slander " and not because of your speech.With hate laws there is no need to show the speech was used to commit any other crime and there is no need to show that anyone was harmed by the speech.People are not being prosecuted because of the damage they cause but because of who they are and what they think.Prosecuting people because of who they are is racism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... the difference is when you use speech to commit "fraud, libel, and slander" you are prosecuted because you committed "fraud, libel, and slander" and not because of your speech.With hate laws there is no need to show the speech was used to commit any other crime and there is no need to show that anyone was harmed by the speech.People are not being prosecuted because of the damage they cause but because of who they are and what they think.Prosecuting people because of who they are is racism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139</id>
	<title>No Asylum?</title>
	<author>Bellegante</author>
	<datestamp>1247342340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No free speech in the UK, I get that (though I strongly disagree with it!), but why not offer asylum?  Don't we believe in the right to free speech ourselves?  Isn't this a perfect example of a situation in which we should, when someone comes to us who is being prosecuted for a crime that we do not consider to be a crime?</htmltext>
<tokenext>No free speech in the UK , I get that ( though I strongly disagree with it !
) , but why not offer asylum ?
Do n't we believe in the right to free speech ourselves ?
Is n't this a perfect example of a situation in which we should , when someone comes to us who is being prosecuted for a crime that we do not consider to be a crime ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No free speech in the UK, I get that (though I strongly disagree with it!
), but why not offer asylum?
Don't we believe in the right to free speech ourselves?
Isn't this a perfect example of a situation in which we should, when someone comes to us who is being prosecuted for a crime that we do not consider to be a crime?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043</id>
	<title>What do they hope to accomplish?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247341620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I never understand what people like this hope to accomplish.  Inciting racial hatred... really, it's like internet trolling - it just gets people flustered and angry, and they do it for 'teh lulz'.  It's pathetic.  Nothing changes; nobody is going to be swayed by their infantile invective, they aren't ever going to have the people they dislike evicted from their country.  Even if they did, would it really make their life any better?<p>
The common thread amongst racists that I've found is that they invariably want someone to blame for the state of their own lives, and they choose someone who is obviously different from them, because it's easy.  These guys aren't smart, capable people; they're losers. It takes people with amazing charisma and a climate of social discontent to legitimise racially prejudicial attitudes - insulting cartoons shoved under a synagogue door don't make the grade.</p><p>Should they be imprisoned?  Maybe.  But I think we'd accomplish just as much by ignoring them and their malcontent existance, as one would an internet troll.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never understand what people like this hope to accomplish .
Inciting racial hatred... really , it 's like internet trolling - it just gets people flustered and angry , and they do it for 'teh lulz' .
It 's pathetic .
Nothing changes ; nobody is going to be swayed by their infantile invective , they are n't ever going to have the people they dislike evicted from their country .
Even if they did , would it really make their life any better ?
The common thread amongst racists that I 've found is that they invariably want someone to blame for the state of their own lives , and they choose someone who is obviously different from them , because it 's easy .
These guys are n't smart , capable people ; they 're losers .
It takes people with amazing charisma and a climate of social discontent to legitimise racially prejudicial attitudes - insulting cartoons shoved under a synagogue door do n't make the grade.Should they be imprisoned ?
Maybe. But I think we 'd accomplish just as much by ignoring them and their malcontent existance , as one would an internet troll .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never understand what people like this hope to accomplish.
Inciting racial hatred... really, it's like internet trolling - it just gets people flustered and angry, and they do it for 'teh lulz'.
It's pathetic.
Nothing changes; nobody is going to be swayed by their infantile invective, they aren't ever going to have the people they dislike evicted from their country.
Even if they did, would it really make their life any better?
The common thread amongst racists that I've found is that they invariably want someone to blame for the state of their own lives, and they choose someone who is obviously different from them, because it's easy.
These guys aren't smart, capable people; they're losers.
It takes people with amazing charisma and a climate of social discontent to legitimise racially prejudicial attitudes - insulting cartoons shoved under a synagogue door don't make the grade.Should they be imprisoned?
Maybe.  But I think we'd accomplish just as much by ignoring them and their malcontent existance, as one would an internet troll.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662737</id>
	<title>Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1247303160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"incitement"... Does that preclude the existence of free will?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" incitement " ... Does that preclude the existence of free will ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"incitement"... Does that preclude the existence of free will?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665353</id>
	<title>Re:assumption</title>
	<author>skeeto</author>
	<datestamp>1247332800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here are the relevant parts of the gospels you asked for,<p><div class="quote"><p>Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 2 John 1:9-11</p></div><p><div class="quote"><p>Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." 2 Corinthians 6:14-17</p></div><p>Discrimination, right from the zombie horse's mouth. Looks like <i>you</i> need to "actually read the words of Christ".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here are the relevant parts of the gospels you asked for,Whosoever transgresseth , and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ , hath not God .
He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ , he hath both the Father and the Son .
If there come any unto you , and bring not this doctrine , receive him not into your house , neither bid him God speed : For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds .
2 John 1 : 9-11Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers : for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness ?
and what communion hath light with darkness ?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial ?
or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel ?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols ?
for ye are the temple of the living God ; as God hath said , I will dwell in them , and walk in them ; and I will be their God , and they shall be my people .
Wherefore come out from among them , and be ye separate , saith the Lord , and touch not the unclean thing ; and I will receive you .
" 2 Corinthians 6 : 14-17Discrimination , right from the zombie horse 's mouth .
Looks like you need to " actually read the words of Christ " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here are the relevant parts of the gospels you asked for,Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God.
He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
2 John 1:9-11Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness?
and what communion hath light with darkness?
And what concord hath Christ with Belial?
or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols?
for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
" 2 Corinthians 6:14-17Discrimination, right from the zombie horse's mouth.
Looks like you need to "actually read the words of Christ".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664365</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>Beryllium Sphere(tm)</author>
	<datestamp>1247317260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>John Stuart Mill covered this ground a long time ago. Refuting false speech is better than censoring it, because allowing it exposes the people who practice it for what they are, and allows the counter-arguments to be strengthened.</p><p>The examples you have of legal restrictions on speech are either things that would be crimes without the speech component (fraud is a form of stealing) or else things you can't go to jail for (defamation is a matter for civil law).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>John Stuart Mill covered this ground a long time ago .
Refuting false speech is better than censoring it , because allowing it exposes the people who practice it for what they are , and allows the counter-arguments to be strengthened.The examples you have of legal restrictions on speech are either things that would be crimes without the speech component ( fraud is a form of stealing ) or else things you ca n't go to jail for ( defamation is a matter for civil law ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Stuart Mill covered this ground a long time ago.
Refuting false speech is better than censoring it, because allowing it exposes the people who practice it for what they are, and allows the counter-arguments to be strengthened.The examples you have of legal restrictions on speech are either things that would be crimes without the speech component (fraud is a form of stealing) or else things you can't go to jail for (defamation is a matter for civil law).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662895</id>
	<title>Re:Point of Origin?</title>
	<author>Edmund Blackadder</author>
	<datestamp>1247304600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are a citizen of a country that country ALWAYS has jurisdiction over you regardless of where you are. Now the country usually does not exercise the jurisdiction because a country usually has very limited police powers abroad, but that does not mean they do not have it.</p><p>If those guys did not want to be subject to the English laws they should have given up their UK citizenships.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are a citizen of a country that country ALWAYS has jurisdiction over you regardless of where you are .
Now the country usually does not exercise the jurisdiction because a country usually has very limited police powers abroad , but that does not mean they do not have it.If those guys did not want to be subject to the English laws they should have given up their UK citizenships .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are a citizen of a country that country ALWAYS has jurisdiction over you regardless of where you are.
Now the country usually does not exercise the jurisdiction because a country usually has very limited police powers abroad, but that does not mean they do not have it.If those guys did not want to be subject to the English laws they should have given up their UK citizenships.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662479</id>
	<title>Re:No Asylum?</title>
	<author>bagorange</author>
	<datestamp>1247344380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Can I start a business in the United States selling alcohol to those aged from 18-20 and then flee to Britain when I'm arrested?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can I start a business in the United States selling alcohol to those aged from 18-20 and then flee to Britain when I 'm arrested ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can I start a business in the United States selling alcohol to those aged from 18-20 and then flee to Britain when I'm arrested?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665149</id>
	<title>Re:No Asylum?</title>
	<author>Landshark17</author>
	<datestamp>1247329860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What they did was not a crime in America, but it was racist. Americans fear the label of racism. Because of our history, it's pretty easy to make a claim like that stick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they did was not a crime in America , but it was racist .
Americans fear the label of racism .
Because of our history , it 's pretty easy to make a claim like that stick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they did was not a crime in America, but it was racist.
Americans fear the label of racism.
Because of our history, it's pretty easy to make a claim like that stick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662655</id>
	<title>Change we could do without.</title>
	<author>jbdigriz</author>
	<datestamp>1247345700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"You do not have the right to speak in a way that harms people"</p><p>Bullshit. You know how hard it is to win a libel or slander judgement in the U.S.? There is no law against bearing false witness, except under oath. And then you have to prove it.</p><p>Or what about the truth, when it hurts? Careful with that broad brush, Doc. The ends don't justify the unintended consequences. (or are they?)</p><p>Yes, speech, or the publication of  thought,  is an act, and some non-verbal acts are speech, too. But speech is a protected act in the U.S. "Congress shall make no law", etc. That's why the "fighting words" concept is still part of U.S. law, despite the nanny state wanting to reserve all violence, justified or not, to itself.</p><p>These clowns deserve to be horsewhipped by the nearest Jew, but silencing them, silencing speech a priori, and sticking everyone else's head up some collective politically correct ass is not only tyrannical, but myopic and dangerous. I'm sorry U.S. jurisdictions dropped the ball on this one. Obviously they are anticipating the U.S. hate crimes, cyberbullying, etc. bills.</p><p>It was a nice run while it lasted, folks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" You do not have the right to speak in a way that harms people " Bullshit .
You know how hard it is to win a libel or slander judgement in the U.S. ?
There is no law against bearing false witness , except under oath .
And then you have to prove it.Or what about the truth , when it hurts ?
Careful with that broad brush , Doc .
The ends do n't justify the unintended consequences .
( or are they ?
) Yes , speech , or the publication of thought , is an act , and some non-verbal acts are speech , too .
But speech is a protected act in the U.S. " Congress shall make no law " , etc .
That 's why the " fighting words " concept is still part of U.S. law , despite the nanny state wanting to reserve all violence , justified or not , to itself.These clowns deserve to be horsewhipped by the nearest Jew , but silencing them , silencing speech a priori , and sticking everyone else 's head up some collective politically correct ass is not only tyrannical , but myopic and dangerous .
I 'm sorry U.S. jurisdictions dropped the ball on this one .
Obviously they are anticipating the U.S. hate crimes , cyberbullying , etc .
bills.It was a nice run while it lasted , folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"You do not have the right to speak in a way that harms people"Bullshit.
You know how hard it is to win a libel or slander judgement in the U.S.?
There is no law against bearing false witness, except under oath.
And then you have to prove it.Or what about the truth, when it hurts?
Careful with that broad brush, Doc.
The ends don't justify the unintended consequences.
(or are they?
)Yes, speech, or the publication of  thought,  is an act, and some non-verbal acts are speech, too.
But speech is a protected act in the U.S. "Congress shall make no law", etc.
That's why the "fighting words" concept is still part of U.S. law, despite the nanny state wanting to reserve all violence, justified or not, to itself.These clowns deserve to be horsewhipped by the nearest Jew, but silencing them, silencing speech a priori, and sticking everyone else's head up some collective politically correct ass is not only tyrannical, but myopic and dangerous.
I'm sorry U.S. jurisdictions dropped the ball on this one.
Obviously they are anticipating the U.S. hate crimes, cyberbullying, etc.
bills.It was a nice run while it lasted, folks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662563</id>
	<title>Slippery slope BS</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1247344920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to see how you manage to smoke pot on the internet. Likewise with crossing the line from peep show to prostitution (which seems physically impossible.) An interesting limitation to rule 34 (though perhaps a video of prostitution... that's still just porn in my book. Probably not particularly good porn either.)</p><p>And though they were hosting the stuff in the US, they were in the UK, as well as presumably their intended audience. So for all intents and purposes, it was in the UK. They were extradited after fleeing the country, the charges were brought against them while they were in the UK, so the court in no way overstepped their bounds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see how you manage to smoke pot on the internet .
Likewise with crossing the line from peep show to prostitution ( which seems physically impossible .
) An interesting limitation to rule 34 ( though perhaps a video of prostitution... that 's still just porn in my book .
Probably not particularly good porn either .
) And though they were hosting the stuff in the US , they were in the UK , as well as presumably their intended audience .
So for all intents and purposes , it was in the UK .
They were extradited after fleeing the country , the charges were brought against them while they were in the UK , so the court in no way overstepped their bounds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see how you manage to smoke pot on the internet.
Likewise with crossing the line from peep show to prostitution (which seems physically impossible.
) An interesting limitation to rule 34 (though perhaps a video of prostitution... that's still just porn in my book.
Probably not particularly good porn either.
)And though they were hosting the stuff in the US, they were in the UK, as well as presumably their intended audience.
So for all intents and purposes, it was in the UK.
They were extradited after fleeing the country, the charges were brought against them while they were in the UK, so the court in no way overstepped their bounds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664451</id>
	<title>Another sad day for the US, the UK, and the world.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247318040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Clearly these guys are bozos, and don't deserve much pity.  Even so, the point of free speech is that it is free for people whose views are not popular.  If their views were popular and government-approved, there would be no need for laws guaranteeing freedom of speech.

It is nonetheless ironic - but not surprising - that the same British government that has strict laws against hate speech engages in plenty of deceitful and hateful speech of its own against those whom it dislikes, and even engages in genocide against them (using the strict definition of the word, not directly by murder in most cases).

It is a sad day for both the United States and Britain, but hardly remarkable of late - and that is even sadder.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly these guys are bozos , and do n't deserve much pity .
Even so , the point of free speech is that it is free for people whose views are not popular .
If their views were popular and government-approved , there would be no need for laws guaranteeing freedom of speech .
It is nonetheless ironic - but not surprising - that the same British government that has strict laws against hate speech engages in plenty of deceitful and hateful speech of its own against those whom it dislikes , and even engages in genocide against them ( using the strict definition of the word , not directly by murder in most cases ) .
It is a sad day for both the United States and Britain , but hardly remarkable of late - and that is even sadder .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly these guys are bozos, and don't deserve much pity.
Even so, the point of free speech is that it is free for people whose views are not popular.
If their views were popular and government-approved, there would be no need for laws guaranteeing freedom of speech.
It is nonetheless ironic - but not surprising - that the same British government that has strict laws against hate speech engages in plenty of deceitful and hateful speech of its own against those whom it dislikes, and even engages in genocide against them (using the strict definition of the word, not directly by murder in most cases).
It is a sad day for both the United States and Britain, but hardly remarkable of late - and that is even sadder.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662973</id>
	<title>Re:Passport question for the UK folks . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247305200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You forgot the second person in line in that sketch.</p><p>"And what about you sir? Business?"</p><p>"Um, no. I'm leaving to avoid the music cartel for downloading a song."</p><p>*BANG*</p><p>"... and what about YOU madam?"</p><p>"... uh, I'll take the asylum excuse the other person was using."</p><p>"Right you are! Have a pleasant day!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You forgot the second person in line in that sketch .
" And what about you sir ?
Business ? " " Um , no .
I 'm leaving to avoid the music cartel for downloading a song. " * BANG * " .. .
and what about YOU madam ? " " .. .
uh , I 'll take the asylum excuse the other person was using .
" " Right you are !
Have a pleasant day !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You forgot the second person in line in that sketch.
"And what about you sir?
Business?""Um, no.
I'm leaving to avoid the music cartel for downloading a song."*BANG*"...
and what about YOU madam?""...
uh, I'll take the asylum excuse the other person was using.
""Right you are!
Have a pleasant day!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662135</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663307</id>
	<title>Re:Visit West Belfast or South Armagh and find out</title>
	<author>roystgnr</author>
	<datestamp>1247307720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>The USA is one of the few countries that can AFFORD freedom of speech.</i></p><p>You make it sound like that's just some wacky coincidence.  Did the USA just get lucky?</p><p>Start with a land full of Stone Age tribes, some already warring among and raiding each other.  Take the best of that land away from them, by trade if you can but by genocide when you have to.  Start filling it with immigrants, some from groups that emigrated because they were hated where they came from, some from groups that the earlier immigrants hate and despise, and some violently taken into slavery.  Bring them from every country that will send them, don't worry about how recently their countries were at war with each other, don't even require them to speak the same language, and then if they don't self-segregate into ghettos right away, stoke prejudices to encourage that divisiveness.</p><p>Sounds like a recipe for peace, harmony, and love, does it?  No need to worry about watching people's speech there?</p><p>Hardly.  The USA doesn't have free speech because we can "afford" it; that's ludicrous.  The USA has free speech because it's a human right.  Fortunately for us, if you have a nation founded in division, violence, and hate, and you want to turn it into a melting pot where free speech seems "affordable", it turns out that a good way to do so is to foster the belief that human rights should be respected whether the government thinks they're "affordable" or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The USA is one of the few countries that can AFFORD freedom of speech.You make it sound like that 's just some wacky coincidence .
Did the USA just get lucky ? Start with a land full of Stone Age tribes , some already warring among and raiding each other .
Take the best of that land away from them , by trade if you can but by genocide when you have to .
Start filling it with immigrants , some from groups that emigrated because they were hated where they came from , some from groups that the earlier immigrants hate and despise , and some violently taken into slavery .
Bring them from every country that will send them , do n't worry about how recently their countries were at war with each other , do n't even require them to speak the same language , and then if they do n't self-segregate into ghettos right away , stoke prejudices to encourage that divisiveness.Sounds like a recipe for peace , harmony , and love , does it ?
No need to worry about watching people 's speech there ? Hardly .
The USA does n't have free speech because we can " afford " it ; that 's ludicrous .
The USA has free speech because it 's a human right .
Fortunately for us , if you have a nation founded in division , violence , and hate , and you want to turn it into a melting pot where free speech seems " affordable " , it turns out that a good way to do so is to foster the belief that human rights should be respected whether the government thinks they 're " affordable " or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The USA is one of the few countries that can AFFORD freedom of speech.You make it sound like that's just some wacky coincidence.
Did the USA just get lucky?Start with a land full of Stone Age tribes, some already warring among and raiding each other.
Take the best of that land away from them, by trade if you can but by genocide when you have to.
Start filling it with immigrants, some from groups that emigrated because they were hated where they came from, some from groups that the earlier immigrants hate and despise, and some violently taken into slavery.
Bring them from every country that will send them, don't worry about how recently their countries were at war with each other, don't even require them to speak the same language, and then if they don't self-segregate into ghettos right away, stoke prejudices to encourage that divisiveness.Sounds like a recipe for peace, harmony, and love, does it?
No need to worry about watching people's speech there?Hardly.
The USA doesn't have free speech because we can "afford" it; that's ludicrous.
The USA has free speech because it's a human right.
Fortunately for us, if you have a nation founded in division, violence, and hate, and you want to turn it into a melting pot where free speech seems "affordable", it turns out that a good way to do so is to foster the belief that human rights should be respected whether the government thinks they're "affordable" or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28668781</id>
	<title>If hate isn't a crime, why is inciting hatred?</title>
	<author>mcalwell</author>
	<datestamp>1247428140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If hate isn't a crime, why is inciting hatred a crime? This is one question the liberal fascists can't answer. Inciting violence is a crime, because violence is a crime, commissioning a crime is a crime. But hatred?</p><p>Liberals, not being people who like taking responsibility for their own actions, like the idea that nebulous things such as "speech" can be held responsible for events. Ergo, punish the speech.</p><p>The problem with "inciting hatred" is that it's such a nebulous term that anything can be interpreted in that way by even the most hypersensitive paranoiac and before you know it, you're not saying anything for fear of being arrested. For some people, saying that sodomy is grotesque is enough to merit a penalty.</p><p>Britain's Labour government are a sad, sad, desperate, miserable bunch of barrel scraping nation destroyers. We were owed an election years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If hate is n't a crime , why is inciting hatred a crime ?
This is one question the liberal fascists ca n't answer .
Inciting violence is a crime , because violence is a crime , commissioning a crime is a crime .
But hatred ? Liberals , not being people who like taking responsibility for their own actions , like the idea that nebulous things such as " speech " can be held responsible for events .
Ergo , punish the speech.The problem with " inciting hatred " is that it 's such a nebulous term that anything can be interpreted in that way by even the most hypersensitive paranoiac and before you know it , you 're not saying anything for fear of being arrested .
For some people , saying that sodomy is grotesque is enough to merit a penalty.Britain 's Labour government are a sad , sad , desperate , miserable bunch of barrel scraping nation destroyers .
We were owed an election years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If hate isn't a crime, why is inciting hatred a crime?
This is one question the liberal fascists can't answer.
Inciting violence is a crime, because violence is a crime, commissioning a crime is a crime.
But hatred?Liberals, not being people who like taking responsibility for their own actions, like the idea that nebulous things such as "speech" can be held responsible for events.
Ergo, punish the speech.The problem with "inciting hatred" is that it's such a nebulous term that anything can be interpreted in that way by even the most hypersensitive paranoiac and before you know it, you're not saying anything for fear of being arrested.
For some people, saying that sodomy is grotesque is enough to merit a penalty.Britain's Labour government are a sad, sad, desperate, miserable bunch of barrel scraping nation destroyers.
We were owed an election years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662397</id>
	<title>assumption</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1247343900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're making the assumption that overt hate speech actually increases violence, and that suppressing hate speech reduces violence.  I don't think there's much evidence for that.  Quite to the contrary, I think talking (or screaming) these things out openly helps.</p><p>(Of course, since many European nations have outlawed hate speech, I wonder when people start suing Christian churches, given how much Christianity preaches hate and discrimination.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're making the assumption that overt hate speech actually increases violence , and that suppressing hate speech reduces violence .
I do n't think there 's much evidence for that .
Quite to the contrary , I think talking ( or screaming ) these things out openly helps .
( Of course , since many European nations have outlawed hate speech , I wonder when people start suing Christian churches , given how much Christianity preaches hate and discrimination .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're making the assumption that overt hate speech actually increases violence, and that suppressing hate speech reduces violence.
I don't think there's much evidence for that.
Quite to the contrary, I think talking (or screaming) these things out openly helps.
(Of course, since many European nations have outlawed hate speech, I wonder when people start suing Christian churches, given how much Christianity preaches hate and discrimination.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662157</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662385</id>
	<title>Authoritarians demand "purity" of thought</title>
	<author>davide marney</author>
	<datestamp>1247343840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many forms of authoritarianism.  It is a belief system that is surprisingly "cross-platform"; you'll find examples in all kinds of communities, secular and religious, left-wing and right-wing, liberal and conservative.</p><p>What they have in common is a mis-trust in the governed.  The governed must be repressed, and cannot be allowed to have free choice.  There can be no  tolerance for meaningful opposition, for that would "weaken" the community, resulting in "instability", i.e., loss of control by the governing class.  It is a forced form of allegiance.</p><p>All truly free societies are built on the power of persuasion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many forms of authoritarianism .
It is a belief system that is surprisingly " cross-platform " ; you 'll find examples in all kinds of communities , secular and religious , left-wing and right-wing , liberal and conservative.What they have in common is a mis-trust in the governed .
The governed must be repressed , and can not be allowed to have free choice .
There can be no tolerance for meaningful opposition , for that would " weaken " the community , resulting in " instability " , i.e. , loss of control by the governing class .
It is a forced form of allegiance.All truly free societies are built on the power of persuasion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many forms of authoritarianism.
It is a belief system that is surprisingly "cross-platform"; you'll find examples in all kinds of communities, secular and religious, left-wing and right-wing, liberal and conservative.What they have in common is a mis-trust in the governed.
The governed must be repressed, and cannot be allowed to have free choice.
There can be no  tolerance for meaningful opposition, for that would "weaken" the community, resulting in "instability", i.e., loss of control by the governing class.
It is a forced form of allegiance.All truly free societies are built on the power of persuasion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664475</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid they meet Annonymous</title>
	<author>Stile 65</author>
	<datestamp>1247318340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No worries, Sickipedia already has coverage of the story.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No worries , Sickipedia already has coverage of the story .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No worries, Sickipedia already has coverage of the story.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661951</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663351</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>misexistentialist</author>
	<datestamp>1247308020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Slashdot is a <i>  private </i>  forum that lets users prioritize posts, but I assume only deletes spam. Adblock is self-censorship, which is like blocking one's ears when some racist speaks. Neither of these is state censorship. I don't know who actually supports TV censorship (hypocritical politicians? the religiously insane?), and anyone who opposes censoring hate-speech would oppose it too.<br> <br>
The rest of your argument is basically: "If you were in danger and scared, you wouldn't give a fuck about freedom of speech". Maybe, like how we allow national leaders to become dictators in times of war. But in that case there is a threat to society, which I don't see in this case. A few individuals killed does simply not merit restricting the freedom of everyone. Theo van Gogh wasn't scared of the threats, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have wanted <i> Kill Theo van Gogh: The Musical</i>  to have been banned or its director imprisoned.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot is a private forum that lets users prioritize posts , but I assume only deletes spam .
Adblock is self-censorship , which is like blocking one 's ears when some racist speaks .
Neither of these is state censorship .
I do n't know who actually supports TV censorship ( hypocritical politicians ?
the religiously insane ?
) , and anyone who opposes censoring hate-speech would oppose it too .
The rest of your argument is basically : " If you were in danger and scared , you would n't give a fuck about freedom of speech " .
Maybe , like how we allow national leaders to become dictators in times of war .
But in that case there is a threat to society , which I do n't see in this case .
A few individuals killed does simply not merit restricting the freedom of everyone .
Theo van Gogh was n't scared of the threats , and I 'm pretty sure he would n't have wanted Kill Theo van Gogh : The Musical to have been banned or its director imprisoned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot is a   private   forum that lets users prioritize posts, but I assume only deletes spam.
Adblock is self-censorship, which is like blocking one's ears when some racist speaks.
Neither of these is state censorship.
I don't know who actually supports TV censorship (hypocritical politicians?
the religiously insane?
), and anyone who opposes censoring hate-speech would oppose it too.
The rest of your argument is basically: "If you were in danger and scared, you wouldn't give a fuck about freedom of speech".
Maybe, like how we allow national leaders to become dictators in times of war.
But in that case there is a threat to society, which I don't see in this case.
A few individuals killed does simply not merit restricting the freedom of everyone.
Theo van Gogh wasn't scared of the threats, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have wanted  Kill Theo van Gogh: The Musical  to have been banned or its director imprisoned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662561</id>
	<title>Re:No Asylum?</title>
	<author>Psyborgue</author>
	<datestamp>1247344920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think they should have been granted assylum, but it would have probably been too much of a diplomatic faux pas for anybody to consider.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think they should have been granted assylum , but it would have probably been too much of a diplomatic faux pas for anybody to consider .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think they should have been granted assylum, but it would have probably been too much of a diplomatic faux pas for anybody to consider.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662325</id>
	<title>Re:Point of Origin?</title>
	<author>RsG</author>
	<datestamp>1247343420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The summary is somewhat misleading.</p><p>The convicted parties were handing out leaflets in the UK, which drew complaints due to their racist content.  The content of the leaflets was stored on a US server, but "published" (printed really) in the UK.  Both defendants lived in the UK, but sought asylum in the US after they were charged.</p><p>Jurisdiction is not the problem here - in every country I know of, storing "illegal material" outside the local borders does not constitute a legal defence.  If we were talking about weapons or drugs, then storing internationally (say in a safe haven where they're legal) while distributing locally (where they're illegal) would still get you charged.</p><p>The question is whether the material should be illegal in the first place.  That has nothing to do with jurisdiction and everything to do with civil liberties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary is somewhat misleading.The convicted parties were handing out leaflets in the UK , which drew complaints due to their racist content .
The content of the leaflets was stored on a US server , but " published " ( printed really ) in the UK .
Both defendants lived in the UK , but sought asylum in the US after they were charged.Jurisdiction is not the problem here - in every country I know of , storing " illegal material " outside the local borders does not constitute a legal defence .
If we were talking about weapons or drugs , then storing internationally ( say in a safe haven where they 're legal ) while distributing locally ( where they 're illegal ) would still get you charged.The question is whether the material should be illegal in the first place .
That has nothing to do with jurisdiction and everything to do with civil liberties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary is somewhat misleading.The convicted parties were handing out leaflets in the UK, which drew complaints due to their racist content.
The content of the leaflets was stored on a US server, but "published" (printed really) in the UK.
Both defendants lived in the UK, but sought asylum in the US after they were charged.Jurisdiction is not the problem here - in every country I know of, storing "illegal material" outside the local borders does not constitute a legal defence.
If we were talking about weapons or drugs, then storing internationally (say in a safe haven where they're legal) while distributing locally (where they're illegal) would still get you charged.The question is whether the material should be illegal in the first place.
That has nothing to do with jurisdiction and everything to do with civil liberties.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28671293</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently Free Speech rights do not cover Hate</title>
	<author>R2.0</author>
	<datestamp>1247406660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I guess that means we can send the KKK and Nazi groups in the USA to jail then for distributing hate speech materials."</p><p>Legal citation, please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I guess that means we can send the KKK and Nazi groups in the USA to jail then for distributing hate speech materials .
" Legal citation , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I guess that means we can send the KKK and Nazi groups in the USA to jail then for distributing hate speech materials.
"Legal citation, please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665993</id>
	<title>Re:!thoughtcrime</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247389560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>kill yourself</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>kill yourself</tokentext>
<sentencetext>kill yourself</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471</id>
	<title>The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.</title>
	<author>SpinyNorman</author>
	<datestamp>1247344320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Freedom of speech" in the US doesn't mean you can say whatever you want either. If you endanger other people by what you say (e.g. shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, incite others to murder, violence) there are consequences. If you slander someone there are consequences. If you lie under oath there are consequences.</p><p>Freedom of speech isn't a right that overrides all other laws, not should it be.</p><p>I'm amazed not only that this story was posted to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. but also that so many apparently have sympathy for these losers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Freedom of speech " in the US does n't mean you can say whatever you want either .
If you endanger other people by what you say ( e.g .
shout " fire " in a crowded theatre , incite others to murder , violence ) there are consequences .
If you slander someone there are consequences .
If you lie under oath there are consequences.Freedom of speech is n't a right that overrides all other laws , not should it be.I 'm amazed not only that this story was posted to / .
but also that so many apparently have sympathy for these losers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Freedom of speech" in the US doesn't mean you can say whatever you want either.
If you endanger other people by what you say (e.g.
shout "fire" in a crowded theatre, incite others to murder, violence) there are consequences.
If you slander someone there are consequences.
If you lie under oath there are consequences.Freedom of speech isn't a right that overrides all other laws, not should it be.I'm amazed not only that this story was posted to /.
but also that so many apparently have sympathy for these losers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662427</id>
	<title>ideas have consequences</title>
	<author>Presto Vivace</author>
	<datestamp>1247344020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the internet can be a great way to incite violence. You cannot live in freedom if some creep is using the internet to incite violence against you. I think these laws are reasonable.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the internet can be a great way to incite violence .
You can not live in freedom if some creep is using the internet to incite violence against you .
I think these laws are reasonable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the internet can be a great way to incite violence.
You cannot live in freedom if some creep is using the internet to incite violence against you.
I think these laws are reasonable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665827</id>
	<title>J.S. Mill is instructional...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247342280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>John Stuart Mill once discussed the essential quality of free speech.  He discusses speech that was utterly vulgar, disgusting, hateful, and otherwise devoid of any value.  He wisely said that even this speech should be free, as it serves as an example of opinions that should be rejected by other people - you can show the truth by showing falsehood.</p><p>It should never be the government's job to restrict speech, no matter how disgusting and hateful.  The public however has a right to confront such speech and to use their speech to drown out and show the falsehoods in hate speech, and to embarrass the morons that spew such filth.  That is how a free society should and often does operate.  The U.S. does plenty of wrong things, and plenty of right things - I am proud of the tradition of free speech in the United States and I hope that it serves as an example to the rest of the world.</p><p>By the way, I'm one of those far-left socialists of which the libertarians and other right-wingers on Slashdot are so terrified.  We socialists love freedom as much as you, we just realize that economic freedom can be as essential as all other liberties.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>John Stuart Mill once discussed the essential quality of free speech .
He discusses speech that was utterly vulgar , disgusting , hateful , and otherwise devoid of any value .
He wisely said that even this speech should be free , as it serves as an example of opinions that should be rejected by other people - you can show the truth by showing falsehood.It should never be the government 's job to restrict speech , no matter how disgusting and hateful .
The public however has a right to confront such speech and to use their speech to drown out and show the falsehoods in hate speech , and to embarrass the morons that spew such filth .
That is how a free society should and often does operate .
The U.S. does plenty of wrong things , and plenty of right things - I am proud of the tradition of free speech in the United States and I hope that it serves as an example to the rest of the world.By the way , I 'm one of those far-left socialists of which the libertarians and other right-wingers on Slashdot are so terrified .
We socialists love freedom as much as you , we just realize that economic freedom can be as essential as all other liberties .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>John Stuart Mill once discussed the essential quality of free speech.
He discusses speech that was utterly vulgar, disgusting, hateful, and otherwise devoid of any value.
He wisely said that even this speech should be free, as it serves as an example of opinions that should be rejected by other people - you can show the truth by showing falsehood.It should never be the government's job to restrict speech, no matter how disgusting and hateful.
The public however has a right to confront such speech and to use their speech to drown out and show the falsehoods in hate speech, and to embarrass the morons that spew such filth.
That is how a free society should and often does operate.
The U.S. does plenty of wrong things, and plenty of right things - I am proud of the tradition of free speech in the United States and I hope that it serves as an example to the rest of the world.By the way, I'm one of those far-left socialists of which the libertarians and other right-wingers on Slashdot are so terrified.
We socialists love freedom as much as you, we just realize that economic freedom can be as essential as all other liberties.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665403</id>
	<title>right attitude, poor tactics</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1247333640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>of course racist speech is heinous, because of what it inevitably results in</p><p>same with drawings of children in sexual situations</p><p>but you don't outlaw either</p><p>what you do is you allow all of it, and then you TRACK the fuckers</p><p>then when the pathetic fuckers take their retarded thoughts to their inevitable conclusion, and you take them down a lot easier, because you already know who and where the losers are</p><p>what, you think my attitude is wrong? let's remind you please exactly what (certainly not who) we are dealing with here:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_von\_Brunn" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_von\_Brunn</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawna\_Forde" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawna\_Forde</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>you want to talk rights?</p><p>you lose your right to be tolerated when you yourself do not tolerate</p><p>that observation trumps all other discussions on rights</p><p>what is the point of tolerating intolerance?</p><p>a tolerant society that tolerates intolerance is a short-lived society. you further tolerance in this world by fighting intolerance. tolerating intolerance merely allows it to spread</p><p>and no, this is not hypocrisy:</p><p>"i hate you because you are black": intolerance</p><p>"i fight you because you hate people for being black": intolerance of intolerance</p><p>you can't equate the two, they are logically separate</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>of course racist speech is heinous , because of what it inevitably results insame with drawings of children in sexual situationsbut you do n't outlaw eitherwhat you do is you allow all of it , and then you TRACK the fuckersthen when the pathetic fuckers take their retarded thoughts to their inevitable conclusion , and you take them down a lot easier , because you already know who and where the losers arewhat , you think my attitude is wrong ?
let 's remind you please exactly what ( certainly not who ) we are dealing with here : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James \ _von \ _Brunn [ wikipedia.org ] http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawna \ _Forde [ wikipedia.org ] you want to talk rights ? you lose your right to be tolerated when you yourself do not toleratethat observation trumps all other discussions on rightswhat is the point of tolerating intolerance ? a tolerant society that tolerates intolerance is a short-lived society .
you further tolerance in this world by fighting intolerance .
tolerating intolerance merely allows it to spreadand no , this is not hypocrisy : " i hate you because you are black " : intolerance " i fight you because you hate people for being black " : intolerance of intoleranceyou ca n't equate the two , they are logically separate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>of course racist speech is heinous, because of what it inevitably results insame with drawings of children in sexual situationsbut you don't outlaw eitherwhat you do is you allow all of it, and then you TRACK the fuckersthen when the pathetic fuckers take their retarded thoughts to their inevitable conclusion, and you take them down a lot easier, because you already know who and where the losers arewhat, you think my attitude is wrong?
let's remind you please exactly what (certainly not who) we are dealing with here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James\_von\_Brunn [wikipedia.org]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawna\_Forde [wikipedia.org]you want to talk rights?you lose your right to be tolerated when you yourself do not toleratethat observation trumps all other discussions on rightswhat is the point of tolerating intolerance?a tolerant society that tolerates intolerance is a short-lived society.
you further tolerance in this world by fighting intolerance.
tolerating intolerance merely allows it to spreadand no, this is not hypocrisy:"i hate you because you are black": intolerance"i fight you because you hate people for being black": intolerance of intoleranceyou can't equate the two, they are logically separate</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663461</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>labnet</author>
	<datestamp>1247308740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is the definition of harrasment that concerns me.<br>Is expressing an opinion harassment, or does that harssment need to be targetted toward an individual.<br>Eg. I don't think a gay lifestyle is right, but I certainly don't hate them for it and wouldn't condone any specific action.<br>If someone doesn't like my religion, then that's their opinion, but if they said hunt me down and kill me because of my religion, then that would be harassment.</p><p>So my concern is that the mere expresion of a personal opinion without intent could be considered harasment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is the definition of harrasment that concerns me.Is expressing an opinion harassment , or does that harssment need to be targetted toward an individual.Eg .
I do n't think a gay lifestyle is right , but I certainly do n't hate them for it and would n't condone any specific action.If someone does n't like my religion , then that 's their opinion , but if they said hunt me down and kill me because of my religion , then that would be harassment.So my concern is that the mere expresion of a personal opinion without intent could be considered harasment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is the definition of harrasment that concerns me.Is expressing an opinion harassment, or does that harssment need to be targetted toward an individual.Eg.
I don't think a gay lifestyle is right, but I certainly don't hate them for it and wouldn't condone any specific action.If someone doesn't like my religion, then that's their opinion, but if they said hunt me down and kill me because of my religion, then that would be harassment.So my concern is that the mere expresion of a personal opinion without intent could be considered harasment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664693</id>
	<title>Think about this</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1247321880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have been stirring up a lot of hate via their radio programs. Savage has even <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103819122" title="npr.org" rel="nofollow">been banned from entering England</a> [npr.org]. A couple of physical attacks have been linked to fans of the shows. What if this attack rate went up? Suppose 100 people a month were attacked? 1,000? 10,000? How many before laws are passed to stop or reduce it?</p><p>I didn't used to be for the "Fairness Doctrine" whereby radio stations had to present both sides (it was repealed in 1987). However, the polarization is getting ugly in this country. I notice it in my own family and relatives even. The Fairness Doctrine does not censor ideas, but merely requires alternative points of views. It may be a good middle-ground.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have been stirring up a lot of hate via their radio programs .
Savage has even been banned from entering England [ npr.org ] .
A couple of physical attacks have been linked to fans of the shows .
What if this attack rate went up ?
Suppose 100 people a month were attacked ?
1,000 ? 10,000 ?
How many before laws are passed to stop or reduce it ? I did n't used to be for the " Fairness Doctrine " whereby radio stations had to present both sides ( it was repealed in 1987 ) .
However , the polarization is getting ugly in this country .
I notice it in my own family and relatives even .
The Fairness Doctrine does not censor ideas , but merely requires alternative points of views .
It may be a good middle-ground .
       </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have been stirring up a lot of hate via their radio programs.
Savage has even been banned from entering England [npr.org].
A couple of physical attacks have been linked to fans of the shows.
What if this attack rate went up?
Suppose 100 people a month were attacked?
1,000? 10,000?
How many before laws are passed to stop or reduce it?I didn't used to be for the "Fairness Doctrine" whereby radio stations had to present both sides (it was repealed in 1987).
However, the polarization is getting ugly in this country.
I notice it in my own family and relatives even.
The Fairness Doctrine does not censor ideas, but merely requires alternative points of views.
It may be a good middle-ground.
       </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28674387</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently Free Speech rights do not cover Hate</title>
	<author>PhilHibbs</author>
	<datestamp>1247488620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've not seen any "hate speech" against Scientology - "ridicule speech", lots of that, but I think it's ok to ridicule something that's ridiculous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've not seen any " hate speech " against Scientology - " ridicule speech " , lots of that , but I think it 's ok to ridicule something that 's ridiculous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've not seen any "hate speech" against Scientology - "ridicule speech", lots of that, but I think it's ok to ridicule something that's ridiculous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662269</id>
	<title>Re:Apparently Free Speech rights do not cover Hate</title>
	<author>erebus24</author>
	<datestamp>1247343060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thankfully Scientology isn't recognised as a religion in the U.K. so doesn't fall under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.</p><p>Sadly we've never had proper freedom of speech in the U.K., the only rights we do have is our implementation of the the European Convention of Human Rights under the name the Human Act. This act has several exceptions, notably those on religious and racial hatred free speech.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully Scientology is n't recognised as a religion in the U.K. so does n't fall under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.Sadly we 've never had proper freedom of speech in the U.K. , the only rights we do have is our implementation of the the European Convention of Human Rights under the name the Human Act .
This act has several exceptions , notably those on religious and racial hatred free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully Scientology isn't recognised as a religion in the U.K. so doesn't fall under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.Sadly we've never had proper freedom of speech in the U.K., the only rights we do have is our implementation of the the European Convention of Human Rights under the name the Human Act.
This act has several exceptions, notably those on religious and racial hatred free speech.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662083</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666123</id>
	<title>Re:Old Testament API is deprecated</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1247393160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You can still make the calls to the Leviticus module, but dont expect them to be supported anymore.</i></p><p>Unfortunately, all mainstream Christian denominations still do call those deprecated APIs, which is why Christian processes keep corrupting memory and storage, dying and even killing other processes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can still make the calls to the Leviticus module , but dont expect them to be supported anymore.Unfortunately , all mainstream Christian denominations still do call those deprecated APIs , which is why Christian processes keep corrupting memory and storage , dying and even killing other processes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can still make the calls to the Leviticus module, but dont expect them to be supported anymore.Unfortunately, all mainstream Christian denominations still do call those deprecated APIs, which is why Christian processes keep corrupting memory and storage, dying and even killing other processes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662761</id>
	<title>Re:assumption</title>
	<author>Atlantis-Rising</author>
	<datestamp>1247303340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What do you mean, 'does nothing of the sort'? How about the dozens of rules on the people you have to kill?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What do you mean , 'does nothing of the sort ' ?
How about the dozens of rules on the people you have to kill ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What do you mean, 'does nothing of the sort'?
How about the dozens of rules on the people you have to kill?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662653</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663901</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247312460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>fuck you. seriously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck you .
seriously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck you.
seriously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664423</id>
	<title>Re:The US has limits on it too. Thankfully.</title>
	<author>rohan972</author>
	<datestamp>1247317680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Theoretically, society sets up laws for the benefit of the honest, not the dishonest. As a result, laws that you cannot sell rat poison as breakfast cereal are not commonly seen as a restriction on trade. Similarly, most people do not see laws against fraud, slander etc as a restriction on free speech.
<br> <br>
In a theatre, you can shout "Fire" quite legally, if there is a fire or if you are an actor and it's in your script. Prohibitions against endangering people by deliberately deceiving them are not a restriction on free speech worthy enough to note.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Theoretically , society sets up laws for the benefit of the honest , not the dishonest .
As a result , laws that you can not sell rat poison as breakfast cereal are not commonly seen as a restriction on trade .
Similarly , most people do not see laws against fraud , slander etc as a restriction on free speech .
In a theatre , you can shout " Fire " quite legally , if there is a fire or if you are an actor and it 's in your script .
Prohibitions against endangering people by deliberately deceiving them are not a restriction on free speech worthy enough to note .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Theoretically, society sets up laws for the benefit of the honest, not the dishonest.
As a result, laws that you cannot sell rat poison as breakfast cereal are not commonly seen as a restriction on trade.
Similarly, most people do not see laws against fraud, slander etc as a restriction on free speech.
In a theatre, you can shout "Fire" quite legally, if there is a fire or if you are an actor and it's in your script.
Prohibitions against endangering people by deliberately deceiving them are not a restriction on free speech worthy enough to note.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665437</id>
	<title>Re:There is no such thing as "jurisdiction" any mo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247334120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sigh... so many comments like this one.</p><p>The United States government has no law against consumption of controlled substances.  They do have laws on possession and trafficking.</p><p>The Unites States have no binding laws at ALL on prostitution, other then compulsion (pimping), and only if that crosses state lines.  Otherwise, it is a rule of law reserved to the individual states to handle.  That's how Nevada works (legal licensed) and Rhode Island (simply not regulated past street walking and brothels).</p><p>Furthermore, we have extradition agreements with every country in NATO, and more besides.  They want a criminal back, they get them, and we get the same deal,  The basic Freedoms are outlined in the Bill Of Rights, an amendment to the Constitution and not even placed in the original document.  The UK has only the Magna Carta and common law, so they have no standing protections on these ideals at all.  This applies to most former colonies as well, such as Canada and Australia.</p><p>IANAL.... but damn it, I did read, I did listen to those that are, and intelligent conversation should be illuminating.  Next time you hear something interesting, check up on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sigh... so many comments like this one.The United States government has no law against consumption of controlled substances .
They do have laws on possession and trafficking.The Unites States have no binding laws at ALL on prostitution , other then compulsion ( pimping ) , and only if that crosses state lines .
Otherwise , it is a rule of law reserved to the individual states to handle .
That 's how Nevada works ( legal licensed ) and Rhode Island ( simply not regulated past street walking and brothels ) .Furthermore , we have extradition agreements with every country in NATO , and more besides .
They want a criminal back , they get them , and we get the same deal , The basic Freedoms are outlined in the Bill Of Rights , an amendment to the Constitution and not even placed in the original document .
The UK has only the Magna Carta and common law , so they have no standing protections on these ideals at all .
This applies to most former colonies as well , such as Canada and Australia.IANAL.... but damn it , I did read , I did listen to those that are , and intelligent conversation should be illuminating .
Next time you hear something interesting , check up on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sigh... so many comments like this one.The United States government has no law against consumption of controlled substances.
They do have laws on possession and trafficking.The Unites States have no binding laws at ALL on prostitution, other then compulsion (pimping), and only if that crosses state lines.
Otherwise, it is a rule of law reserved to the individual states to handle.
That's how Nevada works (legal licensed) and Rhode Island (simply not regulated past street walking and brothels).Furthermore, we have extradition agreements with every country in NATO, and more besides.
They want a criminal back, they get them, and we get the same deal,  The basic Freedoms are outlined in the Bill Of Rights, an amendment to the Constitution and not even placed in the original document.
The UK has only the Magna Carta and common law, so they have no standing protections on these ideals at all.
This applies to most former colonies as well, such as Canada and Australia.IANAL.... but damn it, I did read, I did listen to those that are, and intelligent conversation should be illuminating.
Next time you hear something interesting, check up on it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664567</id>
	<title>All crime is hate crime</title>
	<author>SupremoMan</author>
	<datestamp>1247319420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All crime is hate crime. You don't commit crime on people you like.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All crime is hate crime .
You do n't commit crime on people you like .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All crime is hate crime.
You don't commit crime on people you like.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664279</id>
	<title>Re:What do they hope to accomplish?</title>
	<author>Nekomusume</author>
	<datestamp>1247316180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Because nobody has ever been convinced to hate gays, or jews, or the romany, or blacks/natives/asians/whatever. Not once in the history of our species has that ever been sucessful!</p><p>No well educated, respected people have ever been racist, sexist or homophobic.</p><p>There aren't really any large international racist groups. There were no genocide attempts in Rowanda or Darfur. There has never been a slave trade. The whites did not purposely infect the natives with smallpox and other diseases in the americas. No woman has ever been hurt simply for being a woman.</p><p>It doesn't matter if their arguments are infantile moronic scapegoatism, the fact is that far too many people are willing to buy into them, and a lot of people experience real harm (beatings, rape, death, etc) as a result.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because nobody has ever been convinced to hate gays , or jews , or the romany , or blacks/natives/asians/whatever .
Not once in the history of our species has that ever been sucessful ! No well educated , respected people have ever been racist , sexist or homophobic.There are n't really any large international racist groups .
There were no genocide attempts in Rowanda or Darfur .
There has never been a slave trade .
The whites did not purposely infect the natives with smallpox and other diseases in the americas .
No woman has ever been hurt simply for being a woman.It does n't matter if their arguments are infantile moronic scapegoatism , the fact is that far too many people are willing to buy into them , and a lot of people experience real harm ( beatings , rape , death , etc ) as a result .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Because nobody has ever been convinced to hate gays, or jews, or the romany, or blacks/natives/asians/whatever.
Not once in the history of our species has that ever been sucessful!No well educated, respected people have ever been racist, sexist or homophobic.There aren't really any large international racist groups.
There were no genocide attempts in Rowanda or Darfur.
There has never been a slave trade.
The whites did not purposely infect the natives with smallpox and other diseases in the americas.
No woman has ever been hurt simply for being a woman.It doesn't matter if their arguments are infantile moronic scapegoatism, the fact is that far too many people are willing to buy into them, and a lot of people experience real harm (beatings, rape, death, etc) as a result.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666223</id>
	<title>And I salute the brave soldiers of 9/11!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247395200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have done wonders to show the Great Satan of the US that their immoral acts have consequences for even the most remote of their decadent society!</p><p>Praise Allah!</p><p>Those 3000 people will roast an eternity in Hell while those brave fighters for religious freedom who laid down their lives for the Great Cause are sitting at the right hand of God Himself.</p><p>(fell good about free speech now?)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have done wonders to show the Great Satan of the US that their immoral acts have consequences for even the most remote of their decadent society ! Praise Allah ! Those 3000 people will roast an eternity in Hell while those brave fighters for religious freedom who laid down their lives for the Great Cause are sitting at the right hand of God Himself .
( fell good about free speech now ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have done wonders to show the Great Satan of the US that their immoral acts have consequences for even the most remote of their decadent society!Praise Allah!Those 3000 people will roast an eternity in Hell while those brave fighters for religious freedom who laid down their lives for the Great Cause are sitting at the right hand of God Himself.
(fell good about free speech now?
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663575</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247309520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>none of this justifies the false sense of entitlement that these activist groups demand during the 99.999999999999999\% of the time they're NOT dealing with an honest case of hate. these groups become haters themselves but will never admit it.  This is why free speech should take precedent.  trampling on expression only delays and strengthens the inevitable explosion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>none of this justifies the false sense of entitlement that these activist groups demand during the 99.999999999999999 \ % of the time they 're NOT dealing with an honest case of hate .
these groups become haters themselves but will never admit it .
This is why free speech should take precedent .
trampling on expression only delays and strengthens the inevitable explosion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>none of this justifies the false sense of entitlement that these activist groups demand during the 99.999999999999999\% of the time they're NOT dealing with an honest case of hate.
these groups become haters themselves but will never admit it.
This is why free speech should take precedent.
trampling on expression only delays and strengthens the inevitable explosion.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666609</id>
	<title>Re:Freedom of speach is not a right to lie.</title>
	<author>Shoe Puppet</author>
	<datestamp>1247402880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How is expressing racist opinions lying if you actually are a racist?</htmltext>
<tokenext>How is expressing racist opinions lying if you actually are a racist ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How is expressing racist opinions lying if you actually are a racist?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664289</id>
	<title>Here's their anti-Semitic comic book</title>
	<author>nbauman</author>
	<datestamp>1247316300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Here's the anti-Semitic comic book that they were arrested for. <a href="http://www.heretical.com/holohoax/index.html" title="heretical.com">http://www.heretical.com/holohoax/index.html</a> [heretical.com]
<p>
I believe in freedom of speech. There is a small risk that this could lead to anti-Semitism and violence, but there's a greater risk that censorship could lead to things that are as bad or worse. And I think that getting this out in the open is the best way to deal with it.
</p><p>
Don't the Brits still read Milton's Areopagitica and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty any more?
</p><p>
BTW, Simon Sheppard seems to have a case of arrested sexual development, even by Slashdot standards. <a href="http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/index.html" title="heretical.com">http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/index.html</a> [heretical.com] Or maybe not by Slashdot standards.
</p><p>
Here's the Wikipedia entry <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon\_Sheppard\_(far-right\_activist)" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon\_Sheppard\_(far-right\_activist)</a> [wikipedia.org] and here's his index page <a href="http://www.heretical.com/main.html#directory" title="heretical.com">http://www.heretical.com/main.html#directory</a> [heretical.com] I believe the British term is "nutter."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the anti-Semitic comic book that they were arrested for .
http : //www.heretical.com/holohoax/index.html [ heretical.com ] I believe in freedom of speech .
There is a small risk that this could lead to anti-Semitism and violence , but there 's a greater risk that censorship could lead to things that are as bad or worse .
And I think that getting this out in the open is the best way to deal with it .
Do n't the Brits still read Milton 's Areopagitica and John Stuart Mill 's On Liberty any more ?
BTW , Simon Sheppard seems to have a case of arrested sexual development , even by Slashdot standards .
http : //www.heretical.com/sexsci/index.html [ heretical.com ] Or maybe not by Slashdot standards .
Here 's the Wikipedia entry http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon \ _Sheppard \ _ ( far-right \ _activist ) [ wikipedia.org ] and here 's his index page http : //www.heretical.com/main.html # directory [ heretical.com ] I believe the British term is " nutter .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the anti-Semitic comic book that they were arrested for.
http://www.heretical.com/holohoax/index.html [heretical.com]

I believe in freedom of speech.
There is a small risk that this could lead to anti-Semitism and violence, but there's a greater risk that censorship could lead to things that are as bad or worse.
And I think that getting this out in the open is the best way to deal with it.
Don't the Brits still read Milton's Areopagitica and John Stuart Mill's On Liberty any more?
BTW, Simon Sheppard seems to have a case of arrested sexual development, even by Slashdot standards.
http://www.heretical.com/sexsci/index.html [heretical.com] Or maybe not by Slashdot standards.
Here's the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon\_Sheppard\_(far-right\_activist) [wikipedia.org] and here's his index page http://www.heretical.com/main.html#directory [heretical.com] I believe the British term is "nutter.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664837</id>
	<title>Re:What is free speech?</title>
	<author>JesseMcDonald</author>
	<datestamp>1247324100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No one has a right to "safety". Each individual has a right to their own person and property. When and if one's ability to continue using one's person and/or property is impaired through the actions of others, <em>then</em> one's rights have been infringed. Speech alone is incapable of violating anyone's rights. If others act on such speech, they are the ones infringing others' rights and they are the ones who should be held responsible, not the speaker.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>We should be free to do what we please, so long as we do not infringe on other people's rights to do the same.</p></div><p>Exactly. Too bad you can't see how this contradicts the rest of your comment. Hint: Speech alone does not interfere with anyone else's freedom of action, or self-ownership, or property. Laws against speech, however, do.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>No one has a right to " safety " .
Each individual has a right to their own person and property .
When and if one 's ability to continue using one 's person and/or property is impaired through the actions of others , then one 's rights have been infringed .
Speech alone is incapable of violating anyone 's rights .
If others act on such speech , they are the ones infringing others ' rights and they are the ones who should be held responsible , not the speaker.We should be free to do what we please , so long as we do not infringe on other people 's rights to do the same.Exactly .
Too bad you ca n't see how this contradicts the rest of your comment .
Hint : Speech alone does not interfere with anyone else 's freedom of action , or self-ownership , or property .
Laws against speech , however , do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No one has a right to "safety".
Each individual has a right to their own person and property.
When and if one's ability to continue using one's person and/or property is impaired through the actions of others, then one's rights have been infringed.
Speech alone is incapable of violating anyone's rights.
If others act on such speech, they are the ones infringing others' rights and they are the ones who should be held responsible, not the speaker.We should be free to do what we please, so long as we do not infringe on other people's rights to do the same.Exactly.
Too bad you can't see how this contradicts the rest of your comment.
Hint: Speech alone does not interfere with anyone else's freedom of action, or self-ownership, or property.
Laws against speech, however, do.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663013</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_116</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_118</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28671293
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_121</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665093
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665993
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662277
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_106</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_108</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_111</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662447
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28674321
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_99</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665353
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_98</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662247
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666025
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_114</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28667065
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28671199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_105</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662977
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663409
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_128</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662475
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_104</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662407
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_101</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663351
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_97</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662463
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_100</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665569
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28674219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662947
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662739
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663105
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_125</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666123
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663661
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_127</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664879
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665437
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_103</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664751
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_126</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662553
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665923
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28673265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_117</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662273
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662617
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664155
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_120</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665705
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662375
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662367
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28680467
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_109</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_112</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662135
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663983
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662541
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_115</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662479
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663169
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_95</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662533
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666895
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_94</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665149
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_96</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_107</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662083
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28674387
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662283
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664423
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_110</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664255
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28667033
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_124</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663013
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_102</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662443
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_93</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665331
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663461
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28668125
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28742021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661951
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663931
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28675183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28674307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662795
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_123</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665405
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_119</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663161
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662157
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662397
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662653
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662761
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665495
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662315
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_122</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_113</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662325
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28668601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662455
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663151
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666069
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662737
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665483
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662675
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_11_1746206_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662861
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663461
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28667033
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28668125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664255
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666889
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664155
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28671199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665705
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664085
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662663
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663151
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666069
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666211
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28675183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663351
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665093
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665569
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664879
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666025
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662135
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662973
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663983
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666087
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662855
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663161
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665993
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662575
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663105
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662455
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28680467
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662675
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662039
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662533
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663737
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665331
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662541
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664949
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28667065
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28674219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661943
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28674321
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666223
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661935
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662649
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662273
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662325
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28668601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662895
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662827
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662407
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662217
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28674387
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662247
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28671293
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662269
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665827
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662009
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662043
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662443
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663023
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662157
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662397
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662653
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665353
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665659
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662761
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665495
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663349
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666123
------http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28666895
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665945
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662553
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665923
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665405
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662367
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664279
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28742021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662283
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662977
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662737
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663605
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664711
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662617
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664423
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665165
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662447
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662479
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663169
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662277
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662981
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664483
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665149
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663243
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662337
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665443
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662463
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662093
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662121
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664835
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662391
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663661
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662795
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662947
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665437
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662375
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28673265
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662315
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28674307
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663083
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663457
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28665159
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_11_1746206.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28661951
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28663931
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664475
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28662459
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_11_1746206.28664751
</commentlist>
</conversation>
