<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_03_0123216</id>
	<title>Google Sets Censorship Precedent In India</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262543220000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"Censorship varies from country to country but India, home to a sixth of the world's population, appears to be <a href="//yro.slashdot.org/story/06/07/17/1732209/India-Joins-China-in-Censoring-Websites">shaping up much like China</a>.  Not far <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/30/0027217/Following-In-Bings-Footsteps-Yahoo-and-Flickr-Censor-Porn-In-India">behind everyone else</a>, Google has <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126239086161213013.html">increasingly censored websites</a> with an incident where a very popular <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y.\_S.\_Rajasekhara\_Reddy#Death">politician died</a> and Google forcibly deleted and dissolved a group on Orkut where offensive comments about the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh were posted.  An official from India's Ministry of Communications and Information Technology said, 'If you are doing business here, you should follow the local law, the sentiments of the people, the culture of the country.  If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site, that could start riots.'  The lengthy opinion piece calls attention to the beginnings of a definitive lack of free speech online for Indian citizens.  A spokeswoman for the 'Do No Evil' company explained, 'India does value free speech and political speech.  But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Censorship varies from country to country but India , home to a sixth of the world 's population , appears to be shaping up much like China .
Not far behind everyone else , Google has increasingly censored websites with an incident where a very popular politician died and Google forcibly deleted and dissolved a group on Orkut where offensive comments about the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh were posted .
An official from India 's Ministry of Communications and Information Technology said , 'If you are doing business here , you should follow the local law , the sentiments of the people , the culture of the country .
If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site , that could start riots .
' The lengthy opinion piece calls attention to the beginnings of a definitive lack of free speech online for Indian citizens .
A spokeswoman for the 'Do No Evil ' company explained , 'India does value free speech and political speech .
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Censorship varies from country to country but India, home to a sixth of the world's population, appears to be shaping up much like China.
Not far behind everyone else, Google has increasingly censored websites with an incident where a very popular politician died and Google forcibly deleted and dissolved a group on Orkut where offensive comments about the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh were posted.
An official from India's Ministry of Communications and Information Technology said, 'If you are doing business here, you should follow the local law, the sentiments of the people, the culture of the country.
If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site, that could start riots.
'  The lengthy opinion piece calls attention to the beginnings of a definitive lack of free speech online for Indian citizens.
A spokeswoman for the 'Do No Evil' company explained, 'India does value free speech and political speech.
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630358</id>
	<title>the real problem</title>
	<author>belmolis</author>
	<datestamp>1262511180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site, that could start riots</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
This is a huge problem. Any country in which people will riot because someone criticizes their religion, political party, or favorite celebrity is a country in which people don't understand the notion of a civil society.
</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site , that could start riots This is a huge problem .
Any country in which people will riot because someone criticizes their religion , political party , or favorite celebrity is a country in which people do n't understand the notion of a civil society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site, that could start riots

This is a huge problem.
Any country in which people will riot because someone criticizes their religion, political party, or favorite celebrity is a country in which people don't understand the notion of a civil society.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824</id>
	<title>Now what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262460660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630502</id>
	<title>Re:I'm beginning to doubt the value of free speech</title>
	<author>uid7306m</author>
	<datestamp>1262513760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's (she's?) right about the signal-to-noise ratio.  We've gone from a situation where you can't say the truth to one where you can't find the truth amid the cruft.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's ( she 's ?
) right about the signal-to-noise ratio .
We 've gone from a situation where you ca n't say the truth to one where you ca n't find the truth amid the cruft .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's (she's?
) right about the signal-to-noise ratio.
We've gone from a situation where you can't say the truth to one where you can't find the truth amid the cruft.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630302</id>
	<title>Oppression to fix oppression</title>
	<author>paulkoan</author>
	<datestamp>1262509800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If your nation is so on the verge of rioting that some commentary on a website is all that is required as a trigger, further removal of civil liberties may not be the best course of action.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If your nation is so on the verge of rioting that some commentary on a website is all that is required as a trigger , further removal of civil liberties may not be the best course of action .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If your nation is so on the verge of rioting that some commentary on a website is all that is required as a trigger, further removal of civil liberties may not be the best course of action.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630704</id>
	<title>Compare</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262517540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>         !!<br>The word to word Meaning is :<br>-- There are Lots of Barking Dogs(and its their duty[brain-washed,patriotism]) But the Elephant walks with elegance.</p><p>Google for some, from its inception (in US) has not allowed to de-compile windows executable and with some modification make an OS largely anticipated, and vice-versa.<br>
&nbsp; -well this is not allowed because of laws pertaining to support wholly designed patent system in \_\_public.Interest\_\_ because its a part of culture, software is religion over their, and people do take care of it.<br>Lots of people outside will find it very similar to the story tells.<br>We mostly, heard(rss.voice) or see stories on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./  about patent infringement.. and so and so company has fined billions. Because of what? Its Human tendency.<br>Their is lot of Greatest things to look forward to.<br>Otherwise Everytime google ink will waste in writing front page bad news.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>!
! The word to word Meaning is : -- There are Lots of Barking Dogs ( and its their duty [ brain-washed,patriotism ] ) But the Elephant walks with elegance.Google for some , from its inception ( in US ) has not allowed to de-compile windows executable and with some modification make an OS largely anticipated , and vice-versa .
  -well this is not allowed because of laws pertaining to support wholly designed patent system in \ _ \ _public.Interest \ _ \ _ because its a part of culture , software is religion over their , and people do take care of it.Lots of people outside will find it very similar to the story tells.We mostly , heard ( rss.voice ) or see stories on ./ about patent infringement.. and so and so company has fined billions .
Because of what ?
Its Human tendency.Their is lot of Greatest things to look forward to.Otherwise Everytime google ink will waste in writing front page bad news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>         !
!The word to word Meaning is :-- There are Lots of Barking Dogs(and its their duty[brain-washed,patriotism]) But the Elephant walks with elegance.Google for some, from its inception (in US) has not allowed to de-compile windows executable and with some modification make an OS largely anticipated, and vice-versa.
  -well this is not allowed because of laws pertaining to support wholly designed patent system in \_\_public.Interest\_\_ because its a part of culture, software is religion over their, and people do take care of it.Lots of people outside will find it very similar to the story tells.We mostly, heard(rss.voice) or see stories on ./  about patent infringement.. and so and so company has fined billions.
Because of what?
Its Human tendency.Their is lot of Greatest things to look forward to.Otherwise Everytime google ink will waste in writing front page bad news.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629846</id>
	<title>John Stuart Mill said it best</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262460780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.</p><p>First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.</p><p>Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.</p><p>Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds. And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience."</p></div><p>Local custom or not, silencing speech is harmful to society.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind ( on which all their other well-being depends ) of freedom of opinion , and freedom of the expression of opinion , on four distinct grounds ; which we will now briefly recapitulate.First , if any opinion is compelled to silence , that opinion may , for aught we can certainly know , be true .
To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.Secondly , though the silenced opinion be an error , it may , and very commonly does , contain a portion of truth ; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth , it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.Thirdly , even if the received opinion be not only true , but the whole truth ; unless it is suffered to be , and actually is , vigorously and earnestly contested , it will , by most of those who receive it , be held in the manner of a prejudice , with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds .
And not only this , but , fourthly , the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost , or enfeebled , and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct : the dogma becoming a mere formal profession , inefficacious for good , but cumbering the ground , and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction , from reason or personal experience .
" Local custom or not , silencing speech is harmful to society .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"We have now recognised the necessity to the mental well-being of mankind (on which all their other well-being depends) of freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, on four distinct grounds; which we will now briefly recapitulate.First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true.
To deny this is to assume our own infallibility.Secondly, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied.Thirdly, even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or feeling of its rational grounds.
And not only this, but, fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a mere formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience.
"Local custom or not, silencing speech is harmful to society.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629990</id>
	<title>Re:Now what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262462160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Er, actually former and dead Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, but I agree with your point and your spirit<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>Er , actually former and dead Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh , but I agree with your point and your spirit : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Er, actually former and dead Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, but I agree with your point and your spirit :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30634874</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical Standards</title>
	<author>joebagodonuts</author>
	<datestamp>1262518020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Once they became publicly traded, the onus became profit first - that is American law.<br>Besides,"do no evil" was marketing fluff - always has been. My "evil" and your "evil" are 2 different things.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Once they became publicly traded , the onus became profit first - that is American law.Besides , " do no evil " was marketing fluff - always has been .
My " evil " and your " evil " are 2 different things .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Once they became publicly traded, the onus became profit first - that is American law.Besides,"do no evil" was marketing fluff - always has been.
My "evil" and your "evil" are 2 different things.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630090</id>
	<title>"Ideas are very dangerous things"...</title>
	<author>Dr\_Marvin\_Monroe</author>
	<datestamp>1262549760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think that's how I remembered the quote from one of those "bug" movies, where the evil dicator bug was trying to explain almost exactly the same topic.</p><p>There is an important distinction between falsely crying "Fire" in a crowded movie house and exposing a corrupted government and potentially causing mass riots.  Both involve possible harm, one is definitely not protected free speech and the other should always be.  The difference seems to follow whether the statements are actually true or not.</p><p>Google, Bing, Yahoo, and the other corps seem to only be interested in protecting their profits.  If they cared about the truth, the Tiananmen square would be available for computer users in China and censorship wouldn't exist on the web.  The idea that we could/should create "protected" internet by censoring disturbing content, where only "good" ideas are allowed to remain is to keep ideas away from everyone.  If you really want to "think of the children," you'll protect their right to say or write anything they choose into the internet.  If you don't like what you see, turn off your compter or go somewhere else.  Remember, you chose to read Slashdot, you chose to read this! (Uncle Malchick excluded, I've chained him to a chair and I show him Slashdot content as part of his treatment)</p><p>I'm not quite sure how I come down on the Indian instance.  I don't know if it was true or slander, or even what the authors wrote.  If it was even partially true, Google should be ashamed.  If it wasn't true, who cares... it will prob. get picked up over on DrudgeReport and onto Fox News.</p><p>If we start down this road, the next stop is censoring the 9/11 conspiricy folks, because they're ideas are disturbing people, and so on and so on...</p><p>Hmmm.. On second though, I think I'd better get my attitude straightened out...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that 's how I remembered the quote from one of those " bug " movies , where the evil dicator bug was trying to explain almost exactly the same topic.There is an important distinction between falsely crying " Fire " in a crowded movie house and exposing a corrupted government and potentially causing mass riots .
Both involve possible harm , one is definitely not protected free speech and the other should always be .
The difference seems to follow whether the statements are actually true or not.Google , Bing , Yahoo , and the other corps seem to only be interested in protecting their profits .
If they cared about the truth , the Tiananmen square would be available for computer users in China and censorship would n't exist on the web .
The idea that we could/should create " protected " internet by censoring disturbing content , where only " good " ideas are allowed to remain is to keep ideas away from everyone .
If you really want to " think of the children , " you 'll protect their right to say or write anything they choose into the internet .
If you do n't like what you see , turn off your compter or go somewhere else .
Remember , you chose to read Slashdot , you chose to read this !
( Uncle Malchick excluded , I 've chained him to a chair and I show him Slashdot content as part of his treatment ) I 'm not quite sure how I come down on the Indian instance .
I do n't know if it was true or slander , or even what the authors wrote .
If it was even partially true , Google should be ashamed .
If it was n't true , who cares... it will prob .
get picked up over on DrudgeReport and onto Fox News.If we start down this road , the next stop is censoring the 9/11 conspiricy folks , because they 're ideas are disturbing people , and so on and so on...Hmmm.. On second though , I think I 'd better get my attitude straightened out.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that's how I remembered the quote from one of those "bug" movies, where the evil dicator bug was trying to explain almost exactly the same topic.There is an important distinction between falsely crying "Fire" in a crowded movie house and exposing a corrupted government and potentially causing mass riots.
Both involve possible harm, one is definitely not protected free speech and the other should always be.
The difference seems to follow whether the statements are actually true or not.Google, Bing, Yahoo, and the other corps seem to only be interested in protecting their profits.
If they cared about the truth, the Tiananmen square would be available for computer users in China and censorship wouldn't exist on the web.
The idea that we could/should create "protected" internet by censoring disturbing content, where only "good" ideas are allowed to remain is to keep ideas away from everyone.
If you really want to "think of the children," you'll protect their right to say or write anything they choose into the internet.
If you don't like what you see, turn off your compter or go somewhere else.
Remember, you chose to read Slashdot, you chose to read this!
(Uncle Malchick excluded, I've chained him to a chair and I show him Slashdot content as part of his treatment)I'm not quite sure how I come down on the Indian instance.
I don't know if it was true or slander, or even what the authors wrote.
If it was even partially true, Google should be ashamed.
If it wasn't true, who cares... it will prob.
get picked up over on DrudgeReport and onto Fox News.If we start down this road, the next stop is censoring the 9/11 conspiricy folks, because they're ideas are disturbing people, and so on and so on...Hmmm.. On second though, I think I'd better get my attitude straightened out...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630482</id>
	<title>Re:Now what?</title>
	<author>knappe duivel</author>
	<datestamp>1262513460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>With censorship, I wouldn't be allowed to point out that the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy was a fucking moron, a thief, a murderer, and a fraud.</p></div><p>And still he was the best goddamn senator the USA ever had.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>With censorship , I would n't be allowed to point out that the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy was a fucking moron , a thief , a murderer , and a fraud.And still he was the best goddamn senator the USA ever had .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With censorship, I wouldn't be allowed to point out that the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy was a fucking moron, a thief, a murderer, and a fraud.And still he was the best goddamn senator the USA ever had.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630150</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>xonicx</author>
	<datestamp>1262550660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>well.. censorship is better than western free speech.  Would you call it "free speech" if you get jail for your views?

<a href="http://rt.com/Top\_News/2009-10-15/indian-student-jail-bush.html?fullstory" title="rt.com" rel="nofollow">http://rt.com/Top\_News/2009-10-15/indian-student-jail-bush.html?fullstory</a> [rt.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>well.. censorship is better than western free speech .
Would you call it " free speech " if you get jail for your views ?
http : //rt.com/Top \ _News/2009-10-15/indian-student-jail-bush.html ? fullstory [ rt.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well.. censorship is better than western free speech.
Would you call it "free speech" if you get jail for your views?
http://rt.com/Top\_News/2009-10-15/indian-student-jail-bush.html?fullstory [rt.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631232</id>
	<title>Re:Now what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262528520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fuck the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh</p></div><p>You know that is just sick. The guy is dead and you want to fuck him?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the Chief Minister of Andhra PradeshYou know that is just sick .
The guy is dead and you want to fuck him ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the Chief Minister of Andhra PradeshYou know that is just sick.
The guy is dead and you want to fuck him?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632428</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical Standards</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1262542020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you so absolutely certain that none of your day to day actions benefit the PRC?</p><p>(Or if you want a weaker standard, consider actions that benefit the PRC more than they benefit the people of China; Google can at least argue that they are acting in a way that is a net benefit to the people)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you so absolutely certain that none of your day to day actions benefit the PRC ?
( Or if you want a weaker standard , consider actions that benefit the PRC more than they benefit the people of China ; Google can at least argue that they are acting in a way that is a net benefit to the people )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you so absolutely certain that none of your day to day actions benefit the PRC?
(Or if you want a weaker standard, consider actions that benefit the PRC more than they benefit the people of China; Google can at least argue that they are acting in a way that is a net benefit to the people)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</id>
	<title>Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262460840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site, that could start riots.</p> </div><p>

Sounds like more of a culture problem than a Google problem there. I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots? And even then Islamic idiots try to kill them (look at the Danish cartoonist issue) when free speech is protected by law. <br> <br>

India needs to address this problem themselves by increasing free speech, not by trying to shut it down.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site , that could start riots .
Sounds like more of a culture problem than a Google problem there .
I mean , is the west the only place where people can say " offensive " things without riots ?
And even then Islamic idiots try to kill them ( look at the Danish cartoonist issue ) when free speech is protected by law .
India needs to address this problem themselves by increasing free speech , not by trying to shut it down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site, that could start riots.
Sounds like more of a culture problem than a Google problem there.
I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots?
And even then Islamic idiots try to kill them (look at the Danish cartoonist issue) when free speech is protected by law.
India needs to address this problem themselves by increasing free speech, not by trying to shut it down.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30652052</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>pkphilip</author>
	<datestamp>1262721720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You make a good point.</p><p>Speaking as an Indian, I have to admit, that on average, the indians are quite intolerant to criticism. But this round of censorship has got nothing to do with the average Indian. The average Indian has much worse things to say about the political class than what was censored on Orkut.</p><p>This censorship is not because the Indian citizenry demands it - it is simply the governments attempt at preventing damaging information about the politicians from leaking out. This is just an act by one politicians to protect another. All this talk about Lord Rama etc is just a ruse to drum up support by pandering to emotions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You make a good point.Speaking as an Indian , I have to admit , that on average , the indians are quite intolerant to criticism .
But this round of censorship has got nothing to do with the average Indian .
The average Indian has much worse things to say about the political class than what was censored on Orkut.This censorship is not because the Indian citizenry demands it - it is simply the governments attempt at preventing damaging information about the politicians from leaking out .
This is just an act by one politicians to protect another .
All this talk about Lord Rama etc is just a ruse to drum up support by pandering to emotions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You make a good point.Speaking as an Indian, I have to admit, that on average, the indians are quite intolerant to criticism.
But this round of censorship has got nothing to do with the average Indian.
The average Indian has much worse things to say about the political class than what was censored on Orkut.This censorship is not because the Indian citizenry demands it - it is simply the governments attempt at preventing damaging information about the politicians from leaking out.
This is just an act by one politicians to protect another.
All this talk about Lord Rama etc is just a ruse to drum up support by pandering to emotions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30634012</id>
	<title>Re:Now what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262511660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Here's the thing though,</p><p>The reverse of your comment is a very real possibility. If Google didn't delete the page, there's a damned good chance that battalions of the local politician's thugs will march into Google and tear the office apart.<br>Google's choice wasn't protect free speech or give into political pressure, it was prevent their offices from being trashed with their employees beaten up or not.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here 's the thing though,The reverse of your comment is a very real possibility .
If Google did n't delete the page , there 's a damned good chance that battalions of the local politician 's thugs will march into Google and tear the office apart.Google 's choice was n't protect free speech or give into political pressure , it was prevent their offices from being trashed with their employees beaten up or not .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here's the thing though,The reverse of your comment is a very real possibility.
If Google didn't delete the page, there's a damned good chance that battalions of the local politician's thugs will march into Google and tear the office apart.Google's choice wasn't protect free speech or give into political pressure, it was prevent their offices from being trashed with their employees beaten up or not.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631096</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical Standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262526180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That was total insanity from the outsiders perspective. I hope someone will research the period comprehensively as it seems some Americans are already forgetting the insane atmosphere of the times. "McCarthyism for the 21st century", a fitting book cover for the publication.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That was total insanity from the outsiders perspective .
I hope someone will research the period comprehensively as it seems some Americans are already forgetting the insane atmosphere of the times .
" McCarthyism for the 21st century " , a fitting book cover for the publication .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That was total insanity from the outsiders perspective.
I hope someone will research the period comprehensively as it seems some Americans are already forgetting the insane atmosphere of the times.
"McCarthyism for the 21st century", a fitting book cover for the publication.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630526</id>
	<title>Re:Now what?</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1262514240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Worse yet<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... without Indian tech support, it's only a matter of time before the servers go up in flames.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Worse yet ... without Indian tech support , it 's only a matter of time before the servers go up in flames .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Worse yet ... without Indian tech support, it's only a matter of time before the servers go up in flames.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630202</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30637164</id>
	<title>Re:Did you expect anything but this from Google...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262536380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Google cares now, ad revenue down</p></div><p>Profit is <a href="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG" title="yahoo.com" rel="nofollow">+27\% YoY</a> [yahoo.com].  <i>Some</i> internet ad markets are down, in particular display ads, but Google is still growing so clearly AdWords/AdSense are doing ok.  You'll have to find another motive for your conspiracy theory.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google cares now , ad revenue downProfit is + 27 \ % YoY [ yahoo.com ] .
Some internet ad markets are down , in particular display ads , but Google is still growing so clearly AdWords/AdSense are doing ok. You 'll have to find another motive for your conspiracy theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google cares now, ad revenue downProfit is +27\% YoY [yahoo.com].
Some internet ad markets are down, in particular display ads, but Google is still growing so clearly AdWords/AdSense are doing ok.  You'll have to find another motive for your conspiracy theory.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629860</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631180</id>
	<title>Boo-hiss</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1262527920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every time Google does this I lose respect for them. Shame on Google.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time Google does this I lose respect for them .
Shame on Google .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time Google does this I lose respect for them.
Shame on Google.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630258</id>
	<title>Re:Now what?</title>
	<author>nick1000</author>
	<datestamp>1262552100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fuck the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh</p></div><p>YSR is dead now.

The current CM of AP is a big fool. Many Indians would join your rally cry now. Fuck him!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the Chief Minister of Andhra PradeshYSR is dead now .
The current CM of AP is a big fool .
Many Indians would join your rally cry now .
Fuck him !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the Chief Minister of Andhra PradeshYSR is dead now.
The current CM of AP is a big fool.
Many Indians would join your rally cry now.
Fuck him!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630136</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262550480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Sounds like more of a culture problem than a Google problem there. I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots? And even then Islamic idiots try to kill them (look at the Danish cartoonist issue) when free speech is protected by law.</p></div><p>What are you talking about?</p><p>If I go into a large crowd somewhere in the US and start shouting that you guys deserved 9/11 for your arrogance, not only am I likely to start a riot - I'm also likely to get beaten to death or shot.</p><p>Methinks your perception is a bit off. If you're going to go insinuating that other cultures or countries are inferior, you should at least examine similar situations. And surprise surprise - everyone behaves similarly when the situations have the same meaning to individual people.</p><p>Countdown to troll mod... 5...4...3...2...1</p></div><p>90\% likeliness would be that you would be ignored.<br>5\% that a cop arrests you for disorderly conduct (for yelling at a crowd)<br>5\% that an asshole starts a fight or suckerpunches you (and probably gets arrested for it)<br>0\% that someone pulls a gun or a riot starts</p><p>There have not been many riots in US history, but generally they are started for a reason (such as the shooting of war protesters or racial injustices). You aren't going to start a riot about 9/11. Nobody really cares about it anymore. You need a lot of emotion to start a riot, and it simply doesn't exist in the US at this point in time. The last time the necessary amount of emotional energy existed in the US was after Katrina, but luckily nobody lit the match to start riots.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like more of a culture problem than a Google problem there .
I mean , is the west the only place where people can say " offensive " things without riots ?
And even then Islamic idiots try to kill them ( look at the Danish cartoonist issue ) when free speech is protected by law.What are you talking about ? If I go into a large crowd somewhere in the US and start shouting that you guys deserved 9/11 for your arrogance , not only am I likely to start a riot - I 'm also likely to get beaten to death or shot.Methinks your perception is a bit off .
If you 're going to go insinuating that other cultures or countries are inferior , you should at least examine similar situations .
And surprise surprise - everyone behaves similarly when the situations have the same meaning to individual people.Countdown to troll mod... 5...4...3...2...190 \ % likeliness would be that you would be ignored.5 \ % that a cop arrests you for disorderly conduct ( for yelling at a crowd ) 5 \ % that an asshole starts a fight or suckerpunches you ( and probably gets arrested for it ) 0 \ % that someone pulls a gun or a riot startsThere have not been many riots in US history , but generally they are started for a reason ( such as the shooting of war protesters or racial injustices ) .
You are n't going to start a riot about 9/11 .
Nobody really cares about it anymore .
You need a lot of emotion to start a riot , and it simply does n't exist in the US at this point in time .
The last time the necessary amount of emotional energy existed in the US was after Katrina , but luckily nobody lit the match to start riots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like more of a culture problem than a Google problem there.
I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots?
And even then Islamic idiots try to kill them (look at the Danish cartoonist issue) when free speech is protected by law.What are you talking about?If I go into a large crowd somewhere in the US and start shouting that you guys deserved 9/11 for your arrogance, not only am I likely to start a riot - I'm also likely to get beaten to death or shot.Methinks your perception is a bit off.
If you're going to go insinuating that other cultures or countries are inferior, you should at least examine similar situations.
And surprise surprise - everyone behaves similarly when the situations have the same meaning to individual people.Countdown to troll mod... 5...4...3...2...190\% likeliness would be that you would be ignored.5\% that a cop arrests you for disorderly conduct (for yelling at a crowd)5\% that an asshole starts a fight or suckerpunches you (and probably gets arrested for it)0\% that someone pulls a gun or a riot startsThere have not been many riots in US history, but generally they are started for a reason (such as the shooting of war protesters or racial injustices).
You aren't going to start a riot about 9/11.
Nobody really cares about it anymore.
You need a lot of emotion to start a riot, and it simply doesn't exist in the US at this point in time.
The last time the necessary amount of emotional energy existed in the US was after Katrina, but luckily nobody lit the match to start riots.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633274</id>
	<title>Re:Now what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262547600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy was a fucking moron, a thief, a murderer, and a fraud</i></p><p>Do you have any evidence whatsoever to support these accusations? Well do you?  Ooooops, my bad, I misssed the word <b>Senator</b> in your statment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy was a fucking moron , a thief , a murderer , and a fraudDo you have any evidence whatsoever to support these accusations ?
Well do you ?
Ooooops , my bad , I misssed the word Senator in your statment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy was a fucking moron, a thief, a murderer, and a fraudDo you have any evidence whatsoever to support these accusations?
Well do you?
Ooooops, my bad, I misssed the word Senator in your statment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630270</id>
	<title>The Difference between India and the West</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262552340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The difference between India and the West is that India worships Hindu gods while the West worships democracy and free speech.</p><p>If you offend any of the above gods, there are going to be riots (both in India and the West)</p><p>So, tell me<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... what is the *real* difference between the two? Is it merely a difference of faith?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The difference between India and the West is that India worships Hindu gods while the West worships democracy and free speech.If you offend any of the above gods , there are going to be riots ( both in India and the West ) So , tell me ... what is the * real * difference between the two ?
Is it merely a difference of faith ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The difference between India and the West is that India worships Hindu gods while the West worships democracy and free speech.If you offend any of the above gods, there are going to be riots (both in India and the West)So, tell me ... what is the *real* difference between the two?
Is it merely a difference of faith?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630202</id>
	<title>Re:Now what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262551320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Fuck the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh</p></div><p>Now they will ban slashdot from India because of your comment!!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck the Chief Minister of Andhra PradeshNow they will ban slashdot from India because of your comment !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck the Chief Minister of Andhra PradeshNow they will ban slashdot from India because of your comment!
!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631046</id>
	<title>Transfer of Guilt</title>
	<author>b4upoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262525340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>        Here we have an official who is in essence shifting blame to the unwashed masses. If he does not censor then the wretches will riot. History teaches the opposite. When censorship exists the masses may very well go into total riot and revolt.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I do wonder if people in the US knew a few things that are hushed up if they would not riot in the streets.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Here we have an official who is in essence shifting blame to the unwashed masses .
If he does not censor then the wretches will riot .
History teaches the opposite .
When censorship exists the masses may very well go into total riot and revolt .
                I do wonder if people in the US knew a few things that are hushed up if they would not riot in the streets .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>        Here we have an official who is in essence shifting blame to the unwashed masses.
If he does not censor then the wretches will riot.
History teaches the opposite.
When censorship exists the masses may very well go into total riot and revolt.
                I do wonder if people in the US knew a few things that are hushed up if they would not riot in the streets.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629896</id>
	<title>contradiction much?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262461320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>'India does value free speech and political speech. But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.'"</p></div></blockquote><p>  Translation: you can say *anything* you want as long as we approve of it.  Censoring speech with which the government does not agree is completely incompatible with free speech.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'India does value free speech and political speech .
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets .
' " Translation : you can say * anything * you want as long as we approve of it .
Censoring speech with which the government does not agree is completely incompatible with free speech .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'India does value free speech and political speech.
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.
'"  Translation: you can say *anything* you want as long as we approve of it.
Censoring speech with which the government does not agree is completely incompatible with free speech.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631418</id>
	<title>It is now "the rule" rather than the exception</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1262531460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So what will we do about it?  Can we lobby for legislation?  Or perhaps we can enhance existing legislation that prohibits bribery and other corrupt practices by U.S. companies in other countries?</p><p>Or maybe we can go about this another way -- convince everyone that money interests are more important that human interests?  The evidence for this is widely abundant.  We accept that life-saving drugs are only for those who can afford it.  We accept that food and clean water is never free.</p><p>I remember a story I heard as a child... about a repressed people under a tyrannical and unreasonable government.  Some people got together to free themselves from it and created a government with a constitution that guaranteed certain rights.  I'm not sure that new nation exists any longer because it has been long forgotten, but the idea seemed like a good one at the time.</p><p>The "do no evil" company is a marketing and advertising company.  "Do no evil" is a slogan and its meaning is subject to wide, varied and seasonal interpretation.  I have never expected Google to behave any better than any other company.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So what will we do about it ?
Can we lobby for legislation ?
Or perhaps we can enhance existing legislation that prohibits bribery and other corrupt practices by U.S. companies in other countries ? Or maybe we can go about this another way -- convince everyone that money interests are more important that human interests ?
The evidence for this is widely abundant .
We accept that life-saving drugs are only for those who can afford it .
We accept that food and clean water is never free.I remember a story I heard as a child... about a repressed people under a tyrannical and unreasonable government .
Some people got together to free themselves from it and created a government with a constitution that guaranteed certain rights .
I 'm not sure that new nation exists any longer because it has been long forgotten , but the idea seemed like a good one at the time.The " do no evil " company is a marketing and advertising company .
" Do no evil " is a slogan and its meaning is subject to wide , varied and seasonal interpretation .
I have never expected Google to behave any better than any other company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So what will we do about it?
Can we lobby for legislation?
Or perhaps we can enhance existing legislation that prohibits bribery and other corrupt practices by U.S. companies in other countries?Or maybe we can go about this another way -- convince everyone that money interests are more important that human interests?
The evidence for this is widely abundant.
We accept that life-saving drugs are only for those who can afford it.
We accept that food and clean water is never free.I remember a story I heard as a child... about a repressed people under a tyrannical and unreasonable government.
Some people got together to free themselves from it and created a government with a constitution that guaranteed certain rights.
I'm not sure that new nation exists any longer because it has been long forgotten, but the idea seemed like a good one at the time.The "do no evil" company is a marketing and advertising company.
"Do no evil" is a slogan and its meaning is subject to wide, varied and seasonal interpretation.
I have never expected Google to behave any better than any other company.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630864</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil.</title>
	<author>chabotc</author>
	<datestamp>1262520780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can you please be more specific?</p><p>I mean, breaking laws is the classic, definitive version of being evil right? So in fact it sounds like you would prefer if they did do evil and broke the local laws and risked huge fines, being arrested or being completely banned from doing business?</p><p>Perhaps you've never left your home town and met other cultures, which makes it very easy for you to judge anything that does not comply with your set of values; But the world is a big and complex place and the subtleties what is or isn't evil varies wildly.</p><p>For instance you might enjoy erotic images, and being able to find them is not evil to you.. however in other countries and cultures this *is* in fact evil and illegal.</p><p>So "When in Rome, Do as the Romans do"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can you please be more specific ? I mean , breaking laws is the classic , definitive version of being evil right ?
So in fact it sounds like you would prefer if they did do evil and broke the local laws and risked huge fines , being arrested or being completely banned from doing business ? Perhaps you 've never left your home town and met other cultures , which makes it very easy for you to judge anything that does not comply with your set of values ; But the world is a big and complex place and the subtleties what is or is n't evil varies wildly.For instance you might enjoy erotic images , and being able to find them is not evil to you.. however in other countries and cultures this * is * in fact evil and illegal.So " When in Rome , Do as the Romans do "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can you please be more specific?I mean, breaking laws is the classic, definitive version of being evil right?
So in fact it sounds like you would prefer if they did do evil and broke the local laws and risked huge fines, being arrested or being completely banned from doing business?Perhaps you've never left your home town and met other cultures, which makes it very easy for you to judge anything that does not comply with your set of values; But the world is a big and complex place and the subtleties what is or isn't evil varies wildly.For instance you might enjoy erotic images, and being able to find them is not evil to you.. however in other countries and cultures this *is* in fact evil and illegal.So "When in Rome, Do as the Romans do"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630388</id>
	<title>Re:Free?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262511780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh?? Free trade?</p><p>What about good reasons to attack a country with lies just for controlling petrol production? Is that free trade?<br>Is that free speech (I will always remember US news at that time)?</p><p>I just believe that different cultures must co-exist. Pushing American "free-speech" to another country is just<br>a nonsense (especially coming from a conservative country). Would you accept Muslim laws? I guess no.</p><p>And I am sure that when China will be the dominant country in our world (and you should see it if you are not<br>already in your 60s), you will have to complain about the "truth", won't you?</p><p>Just to remember you that being powerful does not mean being right. History is long enough to tell us this reality.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh ? ?
Free trade ? What about good reasons to attack a country with lies just for controlling petrol production ?
Is that free trade ? Is that free speech ( I will always remember US news at that time ) ? I just believe that different cultures must co-exist .
Pushing American " free-speech " to another country is justa nonsense ( especially coming from a conservative country ) .
Would you accept Muslim laws ?
I guess no.And I am sure that when China will be the dominant country in our world ( and you should see it if you are notalready in your 60s ) , you will have to complain about the " truth " , wo n't you ? Just to remember you that being powerful does not mean being right .
History is long enough to tell us this reality .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh??
Free trade?What about good reasons to attack a country with lies just for controlling petrol production?
Is that free trade?Is that free speech (I will always remember US news at that time)?I just believe that different cultures must co-exist.
Pushing American "free-speech" to another country is justa nonsense (especially coming from a conservative country).
Would you accept Muslim laws?
I guess no.And I am sure that when China will be the dominant country in our world (and you should see it if you are notalready in your 60s), you will have to complain about the "truth", won't you?Just to remember you that being powerful does not mean being right.
History is long enough to tell us this reality.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631868</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>corbettw</author>
	<datestamp>1262536380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If I go into a large crowd somewhere in the US and start shouting that you guys deserved 9/11 for your arrogance, not only am I likely to start a riot - I'm also likely to get beaten to death or shot.</p></div><p>Have you actually tried this? Because I've seen street protesters saying this exact same thing and the worst that's happened to them is they get a bunch of dirty looks (which is also a kind of speech). Sure, if there's a big political thing in town, the cops will arrest you and everyone within a hundred feet of you to "prevent a riot", but that's a whole different problem in and of itself. The general populace here is typically very tolerant of unpopular opinions.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I go into a large crowd somewhere in the US and start shouting that you guys deserved 9/11 for your arrogance , not only am I likely to start a riot - I 'm also likely to get beaten to death or shot.Have you actually tried this ?
Because I 've seen street protesters saying this exact same thing and the worst that 's happened to them is they get a bunch of dirty looks ( which is also a kind of speech ) .
Sure , if there 's a big political thing in town , the cops will arrest you and everyone within a hundred feet of you to " prevent a riot " , but that 's a whole different problem in and of itself .
The general populace here is typically very tolerant of unpopular opinions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I go into a large crowd somewhere in the US and start shouting that you guys deserved 9/11 for your arrogance, not only am I likely to start a riot - I'm also likely to get beaten to death or shot.Have you actually tried this?
Because I've seen street protesters saying this exact same thing and the worst that's happened to them is they get a bunch of dirty looks (which is also a kind of speech).
Sure, if there's a big political thing in town, the cops will arrest you and everyone within a hundred feet of you to "prevent a riot", but that's a whole different problem in and of itself.
The general populace here is typically very tolerant of unpopular opinions.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633826</id>
	<title>Re:Now what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262510160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what business does the world have with that guy's legacy?  you didn't know about him until you read this article, what's the point in spreading negative opinion of someone to billions of people who have no right to even have an opinion of him.  If everyone in the world told me that you were a jerk I'd just assume you were a jerk, regardless of how you may act.  Why shouldn't local laws take precedent over laws in other foreign countries.  I don't see you advocating capital punishment for petty theft or adultery in America, but somewhere in the world someone thinks that it's a good idea.  I think Google made the right decision, and I think the language they used to write the article is proper of a news agency that's trying to attract readership, it's up to the readers to interpret it and not fall prey to common sensationalism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what business does the world have with that guy 's legacy ?
you did n't know about him until you read this article , what 's the point in spreading negative opinion of someone to billions of people who have no right to even have an opinion of him .
If everyone in the world told me that you were a jerk I 'd just assume you were a jerk , regardless of how you may act .
Why should n't local laws take precedent over laws in other foreign countries .
I do n't see you advocating capital punishment for petty theft or adultery in America , but somewhere in the world someone thinks that it 's a good idea .
I think Google made the right decision , and I think the language they used to write the article is proper of a news agency that 's trying to attract readership , it 's up to the readers to interpret it and not fall prey to common sensationalism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what business does the world have with that guy's legacy?
you didn't know about him until you read this article, what's the point in spreading negative opinion of someone to billions of people who have no right to even have an opinion of him.
If everyone in the world told me that you were a jerk I'd just assume you were a jerk, regardless of how you may act.
Why shouldn't local laws take precedent over laws in other foreign countries.
I don't see you advocating capital punishment for petty theft or adultery in America, but somewhere in the world someone thinks that it's a good idea.
I think Google made the right decision, and I think the language they used to write the article is proper of a news agency that's trying to attract readership, it's up to the readers to interpret it and not fall prey to common sensationalism.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630608</id>
	<title>Re:Free?</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1262515680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Free Trade doesn't seem to be doing much for freedom around the world.</p></div></blockquote><p>The Chinese populace is certainly a lot more free than they were even in the recent past, though they're still certainly in poor shape.</p><p>This single incident in India is pretty damn trivial, and India has a pretty good level of freedom for it's population.  Not everyone's definition of free speech matches with the US.  In most of Europe, in particular, public discussion of ongoing trials is commonly forbidden, as are statements that hurt someone's reputation, no matter how factually accurate they might be.  And yet, I don't see too many people complaining most of Europe is a police state...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free Trade does n't seem to be doing much for freedom around the world.The Chinese populace is certainly a lot more free than they were even in the recent past , though they 're still certainly in poor shape.This single incident in India is pretty damn trivial , and India has a pretty good level of freedom for it 's population .
Not everyone 's definition of free speech matches with the US .
In most of Europe , in particular , public discussion of ongoing trials is commonly forbidden , as are statements that hurt someone 's reputation , no matter how factually accurate they might be .
And yet , I do n't see too many people complaining most of Europe is a police state.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free Trade doesn't seem to be doing much for freedom around the world.The Chinese populace is certainly a lot more free than they were even in the recent past, though they're still certainly in poor shape.This single incident in India is pretty damn trivial, and India has a pretty good level of freedom for it's population.
Not everyone's definition of free speech matches with the US.
In most of Europe, in particular, public discussion of ongoing trials is commonly forbidden, as are statements that hurt someone's reputation, no matter how factually accurate they might be.
And yet, I don't see too many people complaining most of Europe is a police state...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631198</id>
	<title>Re:I'm beginning to doubt the value of free speech</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1262528100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because the ideal does not exist in practice is no reason to stop supporting the ideal. Keep moving towards free speech and free markets.

While you're on that topic, another interesting and related issue is that the spectrum of socialism vs capitalism spreads across circles of distance.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because the ideal does not exist in practice is no reason to stop supporting the ideal .
Keep moving towards free speech and free markets .
While you 're on that topic , another interesting and related issue is that the spectrum of socialism vs capitalism spreads across circles of distance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because the ideal does not exist in practice is no reason to stop supporting the ideal.
Keep moving towards free speech and free markets.
While you're on that topic, another interesting and related issue is that the spectrum of socialism vs capitalism spreads across circles of distance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30634398</id>
	<title>Internet censorship: China, India, and the USA</title>
	<author>walterbyrd</author>
	<datestamp>1262514480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Within the last few days, slashdot has published internet censorship stories from all these countries.</p><p>All of those countries may have differernt motovations, and use different tactics, but the results are similar.</p><p>January 01, 2010<br>China Reaffirms Plans to "Purify" the Internet</p><p>&gt; Says crackdown on online pornography is part of overall effort to preserve "national long-term stability," build a "harmonious socialist society," and prevent the "poisoning of young people's physical and mental health," but most likely is all about strengthening its grip on the what could be a dangerous conduit for threatening images and ideas.</p><p> <a href="http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87485/china-reaffirms-plans-to-purify-the-internet/" title="zeropaid.com">http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87485/china-reaffirms-plans-to-purify-the-internet/</a> [zeropaid.com] </p><p>January 03, 2010<br>Your Rights Online: Google Sets Censorship Precedent In India</p><p>&gt; "Censorship varies from country to country but India, home to a sixth of the world's population, appears to be shaping up much like China. Not far behind everyone else, Google has increasingly censored websites with an incident where a very popular politician died and Google forcibly deleted and dissolved a group on Orkut where offensive comments about the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh were posted. An official from India's Ministry of Communications and Information Technology said, 'If you are doing business here, you should follow the local law, the sentiments of the people, the culture of the country. If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site, that could start riots.' The lengthy opinion piece calls attention to the beginnings of a definitive lack of free speech online for Indian citizens. A spokeswoman for the 'Do No Evil' company explained, 'India does value free speech and political speech. But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.'"</p><p> <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/03/0123216/Google-Sets-Censorship-Precedent-In-India" title="slashdot.org">http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/03/0123216/Google-Sets-Censorship-Precedent-In-India</a> [slashdot.org] </p><p>In the USA, I think corporations are behind the censorship. Unethical corporations, and sometimes individuals (possibly backed by corporations), use various legal tricks, and harassment techniques, to remove websites that are not favorable to the interests of those corporations. Sometimes the same corporations have methods of flooding the media with propaganda that is favorable to their interests, or lanching smear campaigns against competiors.</p><p>For example, I seem to remember somebody with the initials JVM getting a certain blog removed, and possible arranging a major whitewash on wikipedia. And of course we all remember the harassment of PJ.</p><p>Then there was the case of the judge that had three websites removed. I may not care for him personally, but I think the APEX v. tunnelrat case raises some serious issues:</p><p>1) When is it right for a judge to expose an anonymous blogger?</p><p>2) When is it right for a judge to order a website to be taken down, and personal property (domain name) to be compensated?'</p><p>3) Is it illegal to publicly display legal contracts?</p><p>4) Does a judge in NJ have jurisdiction over of website that is not hosted in NJ, or owned by a NJ resident?</p><p>I don't care what APEX is telling us, or what the court is telling us. The APEX scam is clearly a case of a company bullying a blogger in order to hide information that company finds embarrassing, and maybe even illegal.</p><p>The case has been covered on several other sites.</p><p>Court orders three H-1B sites disabled<br> <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142806/Court\_orders\_three\_H\_1B\_sites\_disabled" title="computerworld.com">http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142806/Court\_orders\_three\_H\_1B\_sites\_disabled</a> [computerworld.com] </p><p>Legal action PR nightmare<br> <a href="http://www.techgoss.com/Story/2109S14-Legal-action-PR-nightmare.aspx" title="techgoss.com">http://www.techgoss.com/Story/2109S14-Legal-action-PR-nightmare.aspx</a> [techgoss.com] </p><p>Your Rights Online: Court Orde</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Within the last few days , slashdot has published internet censorship stories from all these countries.All of those countries may have differernt motovations , and use different tactics , but the results are similar.January 01 , 2010China Reaffirms Plans to " Purify " the Internet &gt; Says crackdown on online pornography is part of overall effort to preserve " national long-term stability , " build a " harmonious socialist society , " and prevent the " poisoning of young people 's physical and mental health , " but most likely is all about strengthening its grip on the what could be a dangerous conduit for threatening images and ideas .
http : //www.zeropaid.com/news/87485/china-reaffirms-plans-to-purify-the-internet/ [ zeropaid.com ] January 03 , 2010Your Rights Online : Google Sets Censorship Precedent In India &gt; " Censorship varies from country to country but India , home to a sixth of the world 's population , appears to be shaping up much like China .
Not far behind everyone else , Google has increasingly censored websites with an incident where a very popular politician died and Google forcibly deleted and dissolved a group on Orkut where offensive comments about the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh were posted .
An official from India 's Ministry of Communications and Information Technology said , 'If you are doing business here , you should follow the local law , the sentiments of the people , the culture of the country .
If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site , that could start riots .
' The lengthy opinion piece calls attention to the beginnings of a definitive lack of free speech online for Indian citizens .
A spokeswoman for the 'Do No Evil ' company explained , 'India does value free speech and political speech .
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets .
' " http : //yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/03/0123216/Google-Sets-Censorship-Precedent-In-India [ slashdot.org ] In the USA , I think corporations are behind the censorship .
Unethical corporations , and sometimes individuals ( possibly backed by corporations ) , use various legal tricks , and harassment techniques , to remove websites that are not favorable to the interests of those corporations .
Sometimes the same corporations have methods of flooding the media with propaganda that is favorable to their interests , or lanching smear campaigns against competiors.For example , I seem to remember somebody with the initials JVM getting a certain blog removed , and possible arranging a major whitewash on wikipedia .
And of course we all remember the harassment of PJ.Then there was the case of the judge that had three websites removed .
I may not care for him personally , but I think the APEX v. tunnelrat case raises some serious issues : 1 ) When is it right for a judge to expose an anonymous blogger ? 2 ) When is it right for a judge to order a website to be taken down , and personal property ( domain name ) to be compensated ?
'3 ) Is it illegal to publicly display legal contracts ? 4 ) Does a judge in NJ have jurisdiction over of website that is not hosted in NJ , or owned by a NJ resident ? I do n't care what APEX is telling us , or what the court is telling us .
The APEX scam is clearly a case of a company bullying a blogger in order to hide information that company finds embarrassing , and maybe even illegal.The case has been covered on several other sites.Court orders three H-1B sites disabled http : //www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142806/Court \ _orders \ _three \ _H \ _1B \ _sites \ _disabled [ computerworld.com ] Legal action PR nightmare http : //www.techgoss.com/Story/2109S14-Legal-action-PR-nightmare.aspx [ techgoss.com ] Your Rights Online : Court Orde</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Within the last few days, slashdot has published internet censorship stories from all these countries.All of those countries may have differernt motovations, and use different tactics, but the results are similar.January 01, 2010China Reaffirms Plans to "Purify" the Internet&gt; Says crackdown on online pornography is part of overall effort to preserve "national long-term stability," build a "harmonious socialist society," and prevent the "poisoning of young people's physical and mental health," but most likely is all about strengthening its grip on the what could be a dangerous conduit for threatening images and ideas.
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/87485/china-reaffirms-plans-to-purify-the-internet/ [zeropaid.com] January 03, 2010Your Rights Online: Google Sets Censorship Precedent In India&gt; "Censorship varies from country to country but India, home to a sixth of the world's population, appears to be shaping up much like China.
Not far behind everyone else, Google has increasingly censored websites with an incident where a very popular politician died and Google forcibly deleted and dissolved a group on Orkut where offensive comments about the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh were posted.
An official from India's Ministry of Communications and Information Technology said, 'If you are doing business here, you should follow the local law, the sentiments of the people, the culture of the country.
If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site, that could start riots.
' The lengthy opinion piece calls attention to the beginnings of a definitive lack of free speech online for Indian citizens.
A spokeswoman for the 'Do No Evil' company explained, 'India does value free speech and political speech.
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.
'" http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/01/03/0123216/Google-Sets-Censorship-Precedent-In-India [slashdot.org] In the USA, I think corporations are behind the censorship.
Unethical corporations, and sometimes individuals (possibly backed by corporations), use various legal tricks, and harassment techniques, to remove websites that are not favorable to the interests of those corporations.
Sometimes the same corporations have methods of flooding the media with propaganda that is favorable to their interests, or lanching smear campaigns against competiors.For example, I seem to remember somebody with the initials JVM getting a certain blog removed, and possible arranging a major whitewash on wikipedia.
And of course we all remember the harassment of PJ.Then there was the case of the judge that had three websites removed.
I may not care for him personally, but I think the APEX v. tunnelrat case raises some serious issues:1) When is it right for a judge to expose an anonymous blogger?2) When is it right for a judge to order a website to be taken down, and personal property (domain name) to be compensated?
'3) Is it illegal to publicly display legal contracts?4) Does a judge in NJ have jurisdiction over of website that is not hosted in NJ, or owned by a NJ resident?I don't care what APEX is telling us, or what the court is telling us.
The APEX scam is clearly a case of a company bullying a blogger in order to hide information that company finds embarrassing, and maybe even illegal.The case has been covered on several other sites.Court orders three H-1B sites disabled http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9142806/Court\_orders\_three\_H\_1B\_sites\_disabled [computerworld.com] Legal action PR nightmare http://www.techgoss.com/Story/2109S14-Legal-action-PR-nightmare.aspx [techgoss.com] Your Rights Online: Court Orde</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630896</id>
	<title>'If you are doing business here, you should follow</title>
	<author>anonieuweling</author>
	<datestamp>1262521320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'If you are doing business here, you should follow the local law, the sentiments of the people, the culture of the country.<br>
<br>
Of course they do not want to be educated about slightly more modern values and norms w.r.t. freedoms and rights.<br>
So why is it that these USA based companies, VERY much unlike their military actions, appear to do not so much about this freedoms situation when it is internet-related?</htmltext>
<tokenext>'If you are doing business here , you should follow the local law , the sentiments of the people , the culture of the country .
Of course they do not want to be educated about slightly more modern values and norms w.r.t .
freedoms and rights .
So why is it that these USA based companies , VERY much unlike their military actions , appear to do not so much about this freedoms situation when it is internet-related ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'If you are doing business here, you should follow the local law, the sentiments of the people, the culture of the country.
Of course they do not want to be educated about slightly more modern values and norms w.r.t.
freedoms and rights.
So why is it that these USA based companies, VERY much unlike their military actions, appear to do not so much about this freedoms situation when it is internet-related?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30661126</id>
	<title>Contradictory statement.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1262688180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>'India does value free speech and political speech. But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.'</p></div><p>That, of course, makes no sense. Since the violence on the streets is partially a direct result of a lack of free/political speech. Because that freedom would result in changes. And those changes would result in less bad things happening, because people would get more of what they actually want.</p><p>I wonder how hard it is, to become a citizen of Switzerland...<br>(...to me it shouldn&rsquo;t be that hard.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>'India does value free speech and political speech .
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets .
'That , of course , makes no sense .
Since the violence on the streets is partially a direct result of a lack of free/political speech .
Because that freedom would result in changes .
And those changes would result in less bad things happening , because people would get more of what they actually want.I wonder how hard it is , to become a citizen of Switzerland... ( ...to me it shouldn    t be that hard .
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'India does value free speech and political speech.
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.
'That, of course, makes no sense.
Since the violence on the streets is partially a direct result of a lack of free/political speech.
Because that freedom would result in changes.
And those changes would result in less bad things happening, because people would get more of what they actually want.I wonder how hard it is, to become a citizen of Switzerland...(...to me it shouldn’t be that hard.
:)
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630134</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>Burz</author>
	<datestamp>1262550480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. And get this one:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>'India does value free speech and political speech. But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.'</p></div><p>At some point, you have to accept that the government is a part or product of the national culture. So the above quote seems disingenuous to me.</p><p>Its interesting that the west does not hyperventilate over Hindu fundamentalism as we do with the Islamic variety. But then, I don't think the Hindu culture and caste system claims very many oil and gas fields among the lands under its control.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
And get this one : 'India does value free speech and political speech .
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets .
'At some point , you have to accept that the government is a part or product of the national culture .
So the above quote seems disingenuous to me.Its interesting that the west does not hyperventilate over Hindu fundamentalism as we do with the Islamic variety .
But then , I do n't think the Hindu culture and caste system claims very many oil and gas fields among the lands under its control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
And get this one:'India does value free speech and political speech.
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.
'At some point, you have to accept that the government is a part or product of the national culture.
So the above quote seems disingenuous to me.Its interesting that the west does not hyperventilate over Hindu fundamentalism as we do with the Islamic variety.
But then, I don't think the Hindu culture and caste system claims very many oil and gas fields among the lands under its control.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629978</id>
	<title>Re:Free?</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262462040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It doesn't work here either. The US runs to the WTO whenever there's a problem with other places violating the rules of "free trade", but in the Internet Gambling case team USA lost by being told that international sites should be allowed to offer gambling services... yet the USA has ignored that ruling, setting the precedent that other countries can just ignore decisions they don't agree with.</p><p>"Free trade" has become another meaningless political phrase... next please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does n't work here either .
The US runs to the WTO whenever there 's a problem with other places violating the rules of " free trade " , but in the Internet Gambling case team USA lost by being told that international sites should be allowed to offer gambling services... yet the USA has ignored that ruling , setting the precedent that other countries can just ignore decisions they do n't agree with .
" Free trade " has become another meaningless political phrase... next please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It doesn't work here either.
The US runs to the WTO whenever there's a problem with other places violating the rules of "free trade", but in the Internet Gambling case team USA lost by being told that international sites should be allowed to offer gambling services... yet the USA has ignored that ruling, setting the precedent that other countries can just ignore decisions they don't agree with.
"Free trade" has become another meaningless political phrase... next please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631290</id>
	<title>Because you think there is no such thing here ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262529480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>India wants to close some sites for insulting such or such religion as this is considered a potential source of violence, hatred speech...<br>But we have exactly the same laws for different ideas such as racism, nazism, and this is obviously accepted by the vast majority of people that their should be a limit to freedom of speech in theses cases.<br>So if india considers freedom of speech should be restricted, isn't it as moral and liberal as in our countries.</p><p>Oh, and talking about censorship, did you here about what is happening to greece, or what happened last year ? I bet no.<br>How many anti-capitalistic struggles are obliterated by our medias ?<br>And about irak or afghanistan, canada has been at war against "talibans" for almost 5 years now, and on T.V all we see is given, allowed, authorized by military P.R, we don't see afghanistan people any more, just innocent and lost soldiers, to feel empathetic with...</p><p>I think it is far better that a law decides to establish censorship as this law is always a matter of political debate, much more than what is done by powerfull groups of people, in our own countries, like army or capitalist class, and a censorship no one has control over.</p><p>And by the way, freedom has never been thought to be absolute freedom in our democraties, only right wing libertarian think that.</p><p>There is no absolute freedom of speech, you can t hold hatred speech for instance,or insulting the queen for instance.<br>There is no absolute freedom of movement, you can t go backward on a highway or cross a military base.<br>There is no absolute freedom of religions, talk about that to david coreth or anti-abortion evangelists.<br>There is no absolute freedom of property, think about having a slave or a nuke weapon.<br>And so on.</p><p>Liberties are granted and protected in a way that allows us to have a *social* space to live in.</p><p>Now, there is still a question about the fact that a secular country defends what seems to be an official state religion.<br>But I wonder how this could be understood in America where secularism is actualy not a matter of debate, every politicians has to take care of what evangelist groups think and want, and where the president has to swear allegeance to the country on a bible, and the ennemy is mostly muslim.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>India wants to close some sites for insulting such or such religion as this is considered a potential source of violence , hatred speech...But we have exactly the same laws for different ideas such as racism , nazism , and this is obviously accepted by the vast majority of people that their should be a limit to freedom of speech in theses cases.So if india considers freedom of speech should be restricted , is n't it as moral and liberal as in our countries.Oh , and talking about censorship , did you here about what is happening to greece , or what happened last year ?
I bet no.How many anti-capitalistic struggles are obliterated by our medias ? And about irak or afghanistan , canada has been at war against " talibans " for almost 5 years now , and on T.V all we see is given , allowed , authorized by military P.R , we do n't see afghanistan people any more , just innocent and lost soldiers , to feel empathetic with...I think it is far better that a law decides to establish censorship as this law is always a matter of political debate , much more than what is done by powerfull groups of people , in our own countries , like army or capitalist class , and a censorship no one has control over.And by the way , freedom has never been thought to be absolute freedom in our democraties , only right wing libertarian think that.There is no absolute freedom of speech , you can t hold hatred speech for instance,or insulting the queen for instance.There is no absolute freedom of movement , you can t go backward on a highway or cross a military base.There is no absolute freedom of religions , talk about that to david coreth or anti-abortion evangelists.There is no absolute freedom of property , think about having a slave or a nuke weapon.And so on.Liberties are granted and protected in a way that allows us to have a * social * space to live in.Now , there is still a question about the fact that a secular country defends what seems to be an official state religion.But I wonder how this could be understood in America where secularism is actualy not a matter of debate , every politicians has to take care of what evangelist groups think and want , and where the president has to swear allegeance to the country on a bible , and the ennemy is mostly muslim .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>India wants to close some sites for insulting such or such religion as this is considered a potential source of violence, hatred speech...But we have exactly the same laws for different ideas such as racism, nazism, and this is obviously accepted by the vast majority of people that their should be a limit to freedom of speech in theses cases.So if india considers freedom of speech should be restricted, isn't it as moral and liberal as in our countries.Oh, and talking about censorship, did you here about what is happening to greece, or what happened last year ?
I bet no.How many anti-capitalistic struggles are obliterated by our medias ?And about irak or afghanistan, canada has been at war against "talibans" for almost 5 years now, and on T.V all we see is given, allowed, authorized by military P.R, we don't see afghanistan people any more, just innocent and lost soldiers, to feel empathetic with...I think it is far better that a law decides to establish censorship as this law is always a matter of political debate, much more than what is done by powerfull groups of people, in our own countries, like army or capitalist class, and a censorship no one has control over.And by the way, freedom has never been thought to be absolute freedom in our democraties, only right wing libertarian think that.There is no absolute freedom of speech, you can t hold hatred speech for instance,or insulting the queen for instance.There is no absolute freedom of movement, you can t go backward on a highway or cross a military base.There is no absolute freedom of religions, talk about that to david coreth or anti-abortion evangelists.There is no absolute freedom of property, think about having a slave or a nuke weapon.And so on.Liberties are granted and protected in a way that allows us to have a *social* space to live in.Now, there is still a question about the fact that a secular country defends what seems to be an official state religion.But I wonder how this could be understood in America where secularism is actualy not a matter of debate, every politicians has to take care of what evangelist groups think and want, and where the president has to swear allegeance to the country on a bible, and the ennemy is mostly muslim.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631740</id>
	<title>Riots?</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1262534940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean like the LA riots? Or the ones in Paris? Or the ones in Holland. Or the ones in...
</p><p>Riots are nothing new. And they are always invariably sparked by what someone said about something.
</p><p>Free speech is easy when discussed in a class room, a lot harder when applied to the real world.
</p><p>Take Slashdot itself, free speech is constantly censored here by being labeled as hate speech (flamebait/troll) which makes it disappear from normal view.
</p><p>And Slashdot uses moderation to keep the site functioning. So censorship does work... or does it? Because it is also well known that the moderation system is abused to silence those moderators disagree with.
</p><p>So unless you can come up with a solution to the moderation system on Slashdot, I wouldn't suggest how a government of 1 billion should do it.
</p><p>I think India has a near impossible task. Part of the problem currently is that the "lesser" developed cultures (cue flamebait/troll mod) have become rich enough to have time to waste but not so rich they have become afraid to loose.
</p><p>Please allow me to explain. If you watch the known terrorists, then you notice that a lot of them (especially the western attacks) are made by people who are NOT poor. The crotch-bomber's family is very rich, Osama is a member of one of the richest family on the planet, the 9/11 attackers were all middle class.
</p><p>The idea behind it is very simple and has been used by politicians in the west. Houses for voters (british scandal), or re-arrangement of voting districts in the US. The idea is that home-owners tend to vote more conservative. If you own your home, then (the logic goes) you care what happens to it, its value. If your area declines, you will fight it because you could loose the value of your house. The theory works, up to a point. People care about their house... when it is worth caring about. If you are forced to buy a cheap house in a bad area because their are no rented houses available, all that happens is that people resent having to pay high mortage for living in a bad area. It is no magic bullet.
</p><p>SO, what does this mean for India? You got 3 groups of people.
</p><ol> <li>The poor: these will only riot if it becomes a choice between life and death, else they got better things to do like staying alive.</li><li>The rich: these will only riot if it become a choice between their way of life and death, else they got better things to do, like making sure they stay rich. For an example of their rioting, see every South American nation were a left-wing politician is elected.</li><li>The last group is NOT the middle class, the middle class tends not to riot. INSTEAD, the 3rd group is hard to define, but it is the no poor enough to starve but not rich enough to have anything to loose. It is the disconnected, the B-ark. Those who either get their money from the state, family or jobs they resent having and are not all that stable.</li></ol><p>If you take note, the crotch-bomber comes from a wealthy family, but he has contributed nothing. The rioters in the suburbs of paris are unwanted immigrants who work the jobs no-one wants or exist on goverment handouts, and their parents working the jobs nobody wants. Same in LA. It was the blacks who rioted, not the other immigrant groups.
</p><p>And this isn't about race but about position in society. If you got nothing (or feel you got nothing) then it easy to start rioting.
</p><p>And India got to balance all of this in a society that is being torn in all directions. You got areas were people are near starving and areas where its wealth is exploding. Space age nation with hunger probems. It is exploring the moon in a country where people fear a solar eclipse. And everywhere there are people who are rich enough not to worry about starving but to poor to want to keep what they got and feeling disconnected from their society.
</p><p>And then it becomes very easy for resentment to form. India has been one of the most tolerant societies throughout its history. It is one of the few (if not only) country that</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean like the LA riots ?
Or the ones in Paris ?
Or the ones in Holland .
Or the ones in.. . Riots are nothing new .
And they are always invariably sparked by what someone said about something .
Free speech is easy when discussed in a class room , a lot harder when applied to the real world .
Take Slashdot itself , free speech is constantly censored here by being labeled as hate speech ( flamebait/troll ) which makes it disappear from normal view .
And Slashdot uses moderation to keep the site functioning .
So censorship does work... or does it ?
Because it is also well known that the moderation system is abused to silence those moderators disagree with .
So unless you can come up with a solution to the moderation system on Slashdot , I would n't suggest how a government of 1 billion should do it .
I think India has a near impossible task .
Part of the problem currently is that the " lesser " developed cultures ( cue flamebait/troll mod ) have become rich enough to have time to waste but not so rich they have become afraid to loose .
Please allow me to explain .
If you watch the known terrorists , then you notice that a lot of them ( especially the western attacks ) are made by people who are NOT poor .
The crotch-bomber 's family is very rich , Osama is a member of one of the richest family on the planet , the 9/11 attackers were all middle class .
The idea behind it is very simple and has been used by politicians in the west .
Houses for voters ( british scandal ) , or re-arrangement of voting districts in the US .
The idea is that home-owners tend to vote more conservative .
If you own your home , then ( the logic goes ) you care what happens to it , its value .
If your area declines , you will fight it because you could loose the value of your house .
The theory works , up to a point .
People care about their house... when it is worth caring about .
If you are forced to buy a cheap house in a bad area because their are no rented houses available , all that happens is that people resent having to pay high mortage for living in a bad area .
It is no magic bullet .
SO , what does this mean for India ?
You got 3 groups of people .
The poor : these will only riot if it becomes a choice between life and death , else they got better things to do like staying alive.The rich : these will only riot if it become a choice between their way of life and death , else they got better things to do , like making sure they stay rich .
For an example of their rioting , see every South American nation were a left-wing politician is elected.The last group is NOT the middle class , the middle class tends not to riot .
INSTEAD , the 3rd group is hard to define , but it is the no poor enough to starve but not rich enough to have anything to loose .
It is the disconnected , the B-ark .
Those who either get their money from the state , family or jobs they resent having and are not all that stable.If you take note , the crotch-bomber comes from a wealthy family , but he has contributed nothing .
The rioters in the suburbs of paris are unwanted immigrants who work the jobs no-one wants or exist on goverment handouts , and their parents working the jobs nobody wants .
Same in LA .
It was the blacks who rioted , not the other immigrant groups .
And this is n't about race but about position in society .
If you got nothing ( or feel you got nothing ) then it easy to start rioting .
And India got to balance all of this in a society that is being torn in all directions .
You got areas were people are near starving and areas where its wealth is exploding .
Space age nation with hunger probems .
It is exploring the moon in a country where people fear a solar eclipse .
And everywhere there are people who are rich enough not to worry about starving but to poor to want to keep what they got and feeling disconnected from their society .
And then it becomes very easy for resentment to form .
India has been one of the most tolerant societies throughout its history .
It is one of the few ( if not only ) country that</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean like the LA riots?
Or the ones in Paris?
Or the ones in Holland.
Or the ones in...
Riots are nothing new.
And they are always invariably sparked by what someone said about something.
Free speech is easy when discussed in a class room, a lot harder when applied to the real world.
Take Slashdot itself, free speech is constantly censored here by being labeled as hate speech (flamebait/troll) which makes it disappear from normal view.
And Slashdot uses moderation to keep the site functioning.
So censorship does work... or does it?
Because it is also well known that the moderation system is abused to silence those moderators disagree with.
So unless you can come up with a solution to the moderation system on Slashdot, I wouldn't suggest how a government of 1 billion should do it.
I think India has a near impossible task.
Part of the problem currently is that the "lesser" developed cultures (cue flamebait/troll mod) have become rich enough to have time to waste but not so rich they have become afraid to loose.
Please allow me to explain.
If you watch the known terrorists, then you notice that a lot of them (especially the western attacks) are made by people who are NOT poor.
The crotch-bomber's family is very rich, Osama is a member of one of the richest family on the planet, the 9/11 attackers were all middle class.
The idea behind it is very simple and has been used by politicians in the west.
Houses for voters (british scandal), or re-arrangement of voting districts in the US.
The idea is that home-owners tend to vote more conservative.
If you own your home, then (the logic goes) you care what happens to it, its value.
If your area declines, you will fight it because you could loose the value of your house.
The theory works, up to a point.
People care about their house... when it is worth caring about.
If you are forced to buy a cheap house in a bad area because their are no rented houses available, all that happens is that people resent having to pay high mortage for living in a bad area.
It is no magic bullet.
SO, what does this mean for India?
You got 3 groups of people.
The poor: these will only riot if it becomes a choice between life and death, else they got better things to do like staying alive.The rich: these will only riot if it become a choice between their way of life and death, else they got better things to do, like making sure they stay rich.
For an example of their rioting, see every South American nation were a left-wing politician is elected.The last group is NOT the middle class, the middle class tends not to riot.
INSTEAD, the 3rd group is hard to define, but it is the no poor enough to starve but not rich enough to have anything to loose.
It is the disconnected, the B-ark.
Those who either get their money from the state, family or jobs they resent having and are not all that stable.If you take note, the crotch-bomber comes from a wealthy family, but he has contributed nothing.
The rioters in the suburbs of paris are unwanted immigrants who work the jobs no-one wants or exist on goverment handouts, and their parents working the jobs nobody wants.
Same in LA.
It was the blacks who rioted, not the other immigrant groups.
And this isn't about race but about position in society.
If you got nothing (or feel you got nothing) then it easy to start rioting.
And India got to balance all of this in a society that is being torn in all directions.
You got areas were people are near starving and areas where its wealth is exploding.
Space age nation with hunger probems.
It is exploring the moon in a country where people fear a solar eclipse.
And everywhere there are people who are rich enough not to worry about starving but to poor to want to keep what they got and feeling disconnected from their society.
And then it becomes very easy for resentment to form.
India has been one of the most tolerant societies throughout its history.
It is one of the few (if not only) country that</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633540</id>
	<title>I don't see what the fuss is all about.</title>
	<author>openfarce</author>
	<datestamp>1262550300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If Google and the government don't want us to see something, we Indians will say "Fuck them" and look elsewhere. For us, this is a non-issue. In India, if you want some information which is censored, there will be a hundred people around you who already have it. All you have to do is to pick up your 500 dollar cellphone and the call them.
Q&amp;A:
In India, only about a tenth (or less) of the population have access to the Internet. Yet, the government is worried about Internet censorship. Why?
ANS: In India, without Internet, television, radio, print media and cellphone, a piece of information still travels quickly through what we call the human network. And along with the information, individual perspective headers are added and agreed upon, which creates mass opinions and ruins the government's intentions in a few hours.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If Google and the government do n't want us to see something , we Indians will say " Fuck them " and look elsewhere .
For us , this is a non-issue .
In India , if you want some information which is censored , there will be a hundred people around you who already have it .
All you have to do is to pick up your 500 dollar cellphone and the call them .
Q&amp;A : In India , only about a tenth ( or less ) of the population have access to the Internet .
Yet , the government is worried about Internet censorship .
Why ? ANS : In India , without Internet , television , radio , print media and cellphone , a piece of information still travels quickly through what we call the human network .
And along with the information , individual perspective headers are added and agreed upon , which creates mass opinions and ruins the government 's intentions in a few hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Google and the government don't want us to see something, we Indians will say "Fuck them" and look elsewhere.
For us, this is a non-issue.
In India, if you want some information which is censored, there will be a hundred people around you who already have it.
All you have to do is to pick up your 500 dollar cellphone and the call them.
Q&amp;A:
In India, only about a tenth (or less) of the population have access to the Internet.
Yet, the government is worried about Internet censorship.
Why?
ANS: In India, without Internet, television, radio, print media and cellphone, a piece of information still travels quickly through what we call the human network.
And along with the information, individual perspective headers are added and agreed upon, which creates mass opinions and ruins the government's intentions in a few hours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630944</id>
	<title>Re:Do no evil.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262522460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about "Do no evil in the United States"? This is a more realistic slogan, one they could live up to (because of being held accountable), and apparently one that doesn't translate all that well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about " Do no evil in the United States " ?
This is a more realistic slogan , one they could live up to ( because of being held accountable ) , and apparently one that does n't translate all that well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about "Do no evil in the United States"?
This is a more realistic slogan, one they could live up to (because of being held accountable), and apparently one that doesn't translate all that well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631666</id>
	<title>Will americans define free speech??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262534160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In the US, people can get arrested for saying bad things about their President (e.g. kill him). Can one argue that this is impinging on free speech? But you find it perfectly fine to argue that people can say bad things about a leader in India.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In the US , people can get arrested for saying bad things about their President ( e.g .
kill him ) .
Can one argue that this is impinging on free speech ?
But you find it perfectly fine to argue that people can say bad things about a leader in India .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the US, people can get arrested for saying bad things about their President (e.g.
kill him).
Can one argue that this is impinging on free speech?
But you find it perfectly fine to argue that people can say bad things about a leader in India.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026</id>
	<title>Ethical Standards</title>
	<author>Jane Q. Public</author>
	<datestamp>1262548860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google is and has been an American corporation. They started here and grew up here. And it's time they stopped making excuses.
<br> <br>
When they agreed to censor the internet in China, their excuse was "If we don't do this, somebody else will."  Translation: "The dollar is more important than principle." That pretty much puts the lie to their "Do No Evil" motto.
<br> <br>
Google needs to decide whether they really want to "do no evil" or whether they just want to make a profit. They really can't have it both ways. And by traditional Western ethical standards, censorship is EVIL.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google is and has been an American corporation .
They started here and grew up here .
And it 's time they stopped making excuses .
When they agreed to censor the internet in China , their excuse was " If we do n't do this , somebody else will .
" Translation : " The dollar is more important than principle .
" That pretty much puts the lie to their " Do No Evil " motto .
Google needs to decide whether they really want to " do no evil " or whether they just want to make a profit .
They really ca n't have it both ways .
And by traditional Western ethical standards , censorship is EVIL .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google is and has been an American corporation.
They started here and grew up here.
And it's time they stopped making excuses.
When they agreed to censor the internet in China, their excuse was "If we don't do this, somebody else will.
"  Translation: "The dollar is more important than principle.
" That pretty much puts the lie to their "Do No Evil" motto.
Google needs to decide whether they really want to "do no evil" or whether they just want to make a profit.
They really can't have it both ways.
And by traditional Western ethical standards, censorship is EVIL.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631058</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>jopsen</author>
	<datestamp>1262525460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots?</p>
 </div><p>That's not unlikely... Many other places in the world the majority of people are poor and uneducated... and may very well have sort of a middle age mentality, where burning witches on the fire makes perfectly good sense...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , is the west the only place where people can say " offensive " things without riots ?
That 's not unlikely... Many other places in the world the majority of people are poor and uneducated... and may very well have sort of a middle age mentality , where burning witches on the fire makes perfectly good sense.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots?
That's not unlikely... Many other places in the world the majority of people are poor and uneducated... and may very well have sort of a middle age mentality, where burning witches on the fire makes perfectly good sense...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631944</id>
	<title>free speech, or violence in the streets</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1262537220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"... weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets."</p></div></blockquote><p>Yep... because, as everybody knows, when you deny citizens the right to free speech that <i> <b>never</b> </i> results in violence in the streets, right?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" ... weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets. " Yep.. .
because , as everybody knows , when you deny citizens the right to free speech that never results in violence in the streets , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"... weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets."Yep...
because, as everybody knows, when you deny citizens the right to free speech that  never  results in violence in the streets, right?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629982</id>
	<title>Free?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262462100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Almost free is only a portion of free therefore it is NOT free speech after all. This not to infer that speech in the USA is less impeded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Almost free is only a portion of free therefore it is NOT free speech after all .
This not to infer that speech in the USA is less impeded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Almost free is only a portion of free therefore it is NOT free speech after all.
This not to infer that speech in the USA is less impeded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630330</id>
	<title>Honesty</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262510400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, at least they're being honest enough to admit that this is a violation of free speech.  (As opposed to those spineless cowards who think that 'free speech' means 'free speech<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... as long as I agree with it'.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , at least they 're being honest enough to admit that this is a violation of free speech .
( As opposed to those spineless cowards who think that 'free speech ' means 'free speech ... as long as I agree with it' .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, at least they're being honest enough to admit that this is a violation of free speech.
(As opposed to those spineless cowards who think that 'free speech' means 'free speech ... as long as I agree with it'.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629860</id>
	<title>Did you expect anything but this from Google...</title>
	<author>Super Dave Osbourne</author>
	<datestamp>1262460900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Google cares now, ad revenue down, don't piss off governments with freedom or speech, just fall in line and sell more ads.  This is exactly why I won't use and don't encourage others to use anything related to Google, and turn off all adverts with FireFox popup and ad blocking plugins.  Freedoms are only things we give up, we already have them inherently, and a love for tech device addictions and quick search results gives Google and companies like them power.  There are always better choices/alternatives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Google cares now , ad revenue down , do n't piss off governments with freedom or speech , just fall in line and sell more ads .
This is exactly why I wo n't use and do n't encourage others to use anything related to Google , and turn off all adverts with FireFox popup and ad blocking plugins .
Freedoms are only things we give up , we already have them inherently , and a love for tech device addictions and quick search results gives Google and companies like them power .
There are always better choices/alternatives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Google cares now, ad revenue down, don't piss off governments with freedom or speech, just fall in line and sell more ads.
This is exactly why I won't use and don't encourage others to use anything related to Google, and turn off all adverts with FireFox popup and ad blocking plugins.
Freedoms are only things we give up, we already have them inherently, and a love for tech device addictions and quick search results gives Google and companies like them power.
There are always better choices/alternatives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632554</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>Strep</author>
	<datestamp>1262543160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, unless it's about obama.
Then any comment in the adverse is offensive and likely to spark riots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , unless it 's about obama .
Then any comment in the adverse is offensive and likely to spark riots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, unless it's about obama.
Then any comment in the adverse is offensive and likely to spark riots.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630466</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical Standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262513040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, "traditional Western ethical standards" were in full force after 9/11/2001 - people lost their jobs for saying "unpatriotic" stuff, people were ordered out of malls for expressing their views with peace symbol T-shirts,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p><p>then there are all the "no"-words you are supposed not to use etc.</p><p>By traditional Western ethical standards, censorship is common but not blatantly so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , " traditional Western ethical standards " were in full force after 9/11/2001 - people lost their jobs for saying " unpatriotic " stuff , people were ordered out of malls for expressing their views with peace symbol T-shirts , ...then there are all the " no " -words you are supposed not to use etc.By traditional Western ethical standards , censorship is common but not blatantly so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, "traditional Western ethical standards" were in full force after 9/11/2001 - people lost their jobs for saying "unpatriotic" stuff, people were ordered out of malls for expressing their views with peace symbol T-shirts, ...then there are all the "no"-words you are supposed not to use etc.By traditional Western ethical standards, censorship is common but not blatantly so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631646</id>
	<title>Ethical Standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262534100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When they (Goggle) agreed to censor the internet in China, their excuse was "If we don't do this, somebody else will."  Translation: "The dollar is more important than principle."</p></div><p>Sounds exactly like the reasoning of the Bush Family with regards to the Nazi Government in Germany and their willingness to continue doing business with the regime. If there is a Heaven and a Hell, I surely hope the Bush Family roasts for eternity.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they ( Goggle ) agreed to censor the internet in China , their excuse was " If we do n't do this , somebody else will .
" Translation : " The dollar is more important than principle .
" Sounds exactly like the reasoning of the Bush Family with regards to the Nazi Government in Germany and their willingness to continue doing business with the regime .
If there is a Heaven and a Hell , I surely hope the Bush Family roasts for eternity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they (Goggle) agreed to censor the internet in China, their excuse was "If we don't do this, somebody else will.
"  Translation: "The dollar is more important than principle.
"Sounds exactly like the reasoning of the Bush Family with regards to the Nazi Government in Germany and their willingness to continue doing business with the regime.
If there is a Heaven and a Hell, I surely hope the Bush Family roasts for eternity.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629996</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262462220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Politics is far more realistic and practical than that.  At some point it doesn't matter why people are dumb enough to riot, if they will, and it gets people killed (notably innocent people) then you have to be seen taking steps to stop it.  And with 1.1 billion people, no matter what happens, someone is bound to get killed.  Scared sacred elephant in Allahabad, there's a dozen people trampled to death.  Train ride from Mumbai to Dehli there's a few people who fall of and get killed or seriously wounded- assuming the train ever actually goes.</p><p>There are probably 700 or 800 million hindu's in India.  The vast majority of whom are poorly, if at all educated.  The only 'education' they have could be from a local priest who has told them whatever he bloody well feels like.  Changing that to a culture that values fully free speech simply isn't going to happen in a short period of time.  Heck look at ireland and blasphemy laws which just came essentially back into force.  We in the 'west' (insofar as Ireland ever deserved to be counted as the west) aren't exactly immune from this either.  Indians who are pro censorship are playing to a much more practical than ideological view of their country and the consequences of the world they live in.  When you have a literacy rate of 60\% your options aren't good, and more ideological solutions take time.  A lot of time.  Especially when it's in someone else's political interest to stir up a fuss every time someone says something unpopular.</p><p>Truly free speech is an ideological myth, and as matter of practice not worth fighting for anyway - would you really want someone free to stir up a riot that kills dozens if not hundreds of people for the fun of it?  For all the fuss over the cartoons of mohammed the real story is that one guy was able to cause serious personal risk to thousands of people, millions of dollars in productivity and possible property damage.  He was making a statement, but one could as easily have done it solely for the purpose of stirring up a fuss, and that's not really a power you want just waved around recklessly.  Whether it should cause such problems is really a different problem, in the world we live in it does cause problems and you have to cope with that.  No more than in the US the president cannot declare war - power tends to require balance.  The power to declare war must be balanced with the guarantee that the people either (in the british system) can choose to not pay for it, and therefore not go a long with it, or in the US system not allow it at all, the power to cause riots which can kill people and cause millions in damage, trigger diplomatic spats and risk frankly war, perhaps also needs balance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Politics is far more realistic and practical than that .
At some point it does n't matter why people are dumb enough to riot , if they will , and it gets people killed ( notably innocent people ) then you have to be seen taking steps to stop it .
And with 1.1 billion people , no matter what happens , someone is bound to get killed .
Scared sacred elephant in Allahabad , there 's a dozen people trampled to death .
Train ride from Mumbai to Dehli there 's a few people who fall of and get killed or seriously wounded- assuming the train ever actually goes.There are probably 700 or 800 million hindu 's in India .
The vast majority of whom are poorly , if at all educated .
The only 'education ' they have could be from a local priest who has told them whatever he bloody well feels like .
Changing that to a culture that values fully free speech simply is n't going to happen in a short period of time .
Heck look at ireland and blasphemy laws which just came essentially back into force .
We in the 'west ' ( insofar as Ireland ever deserved to be counted as the west ) are n't exactly immune from this either .
Indians who are pro censorship are playing to a much more practical than ideological view of their country and the consequences of the world they live in .
When you have a literacy rate of 60 \ % your options are n't good , and more ideological solutions take time .
A lot of time .
Especially when it 's in someone else 's political interest to stir up a fuss every time someone says something unpopular.Truly free speech is an ideological myth , and as matter of practice not worth fighting for anyway - would you really want someone free to stir up a riot that kills dozens if not hundreds of people for the fun of it ?
For all the fuss over the cartoons of mohammed the real story is that one guy was able to cause serious personal risk to thousands of people , millions of dollars in productivity and possible property damage .
He was making a statement , but one could as easily have done it solely for the purpose of stirring up a fuss , and that 's not really a power you want just waved around recklessly .
Whether it should cause such problems is really a different problem , in the world we live in it does cause problems and you have to cope with that .
No more than in the US the president can not declare war - power tends to require balance .
The power to declare war must be balanced with the guarantee that the people either ( in the british system ) can choose to not pay for it , and therefore not go a long with it , or in the US system not allow it at all , the power to cause riots which can kill people and cause millions in damage , trigger diplomatic spats and risk frankly war , perhaps also needs balance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Politics is far more realistic and practical than that.
At some point it doesn't matter why people are dumb enough to riot, if they will, and it gets people killed (notably innocent people) then you have to be seen taking steps to stop it.
And with 1.1 billion people, no matter what happens, someone is bound to get killed.
Scared sacred elephant in Allahabad, there's a dozen people trampled to death.
Train ride from Mumbai to Dehli there's a few people who fall of and get killed or seriously wounded- assuming the train ever actually goes.There are probably 700 or 800 million hindu's in India.
The vast majority of whom are poorly, if at all educated.
The only 'education' they have could be from a local priest who has told them whatever he bloody well feels like.
Changing that to a culture that values fully free speech simply isn't going to happen in a short period of time.
Heck look at ireland and blasphemy laws which just came essentially back into force.
We in the 'west' (insofar as Ireland ever deserved to be counted as the west) aren't exactly immune from this either.
Indians who are pro censorship are playing to a much more practical than ideological view of their country and the consequences of the world they live in.
When you have a literacy rate of 60\% your options aren't good, and more ideological solutions take time.
A lot of time.
Especially when it's in someone else's political interest to stir up a fuss every time someone says something unpopular.Truly free speech is an ideological myth, and as matter of practice not worth fighting for anyway - would you really want someone free to stir up a riot that kills dozens if not hundreds of people for the fun of it?
For all the fuss over the cartoons of mohammed the real story is that one guy was able to cause serious personal risk to thousands of people, millions of dollars in productivity and possible property damage.
He was making a statement, but one could as easily have done it solely for the purpose of stirring up a fuss, and that's not really a power you want just waved around recklessly.
Whether it should cause such problems is really a different problem, in the world we live in it does cause problems and you have to cope with that.
No more than in the US the president cannot declare war - power tends to require balance.
The power to declare war must be balanced with the guarantee that the people either (in the british system) can choose to not pay for it, and therefore not go a long with it, or in the US system not allow it at all, the power to cause riots which can kill people and cause millions in damage, trigger diplomatic spats and risk frankly war, perhaps also needs balance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633122</id>
	<title>In an ideal world....</title>
	<author>Dartheee</author>
	<datestamp>1262546760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As much as we want everyone to be of the same color, believe the same god, follow the same culture and hold similar ideals, its never going to happen in the real world. Curtailing certain hate-speech to limit the number of people murdered in riots is better than allowing free speech and having a civil war in your hands. We do want immigrants to americanize when they land here don't we? I find nothing wrong in an american firm following local laws in order to harvest a profit from the second most populous country in the world.

Thinking that our way of life is the most superior of them all is the biggest mistake we could make. Many civilizations that tried to act on this and tried to "civilize" the rest of the world have ended up collapsing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as we want everyone to be of the same color , believe the same god , follow the same culture and hold similar ideals , its never going to happen in the real world .
Curtailing certain hate-speech to limit the number of people murdered in riots is better than allowing free speech and having a civil war in your hands .
We do want immigrants to americanize when they land here do n't we ?
I find nothing wrong in an american firm following local laws in order to harvest a profit from the second most populous country in the world .
Thinking that our way of life is the most superior of them all is the biggest mistake we could make .
Many civilizations that tried to act on this and tried to " civilize " the rest of the world have ended up collapsing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as we want everyone to be of the same color, believe the same god, follow the same culture and hold similar ideals, its never going to happen in the real world.
Curtailing certain hate-speech to limit the number of people murdered in riots is better than allowing free speech and having a civil war in your hands.
We do want immigrants to americanize when they land here don't we?
I find nothing wrong in an american firm following local laws in order to harvest a profit from the second most populous country in the world.
Thinking that our way of life is the most superior of them all is the biggest mistake we could make.
Many civilizations that tried to act on this and tried to "civilize" the rest of the world have ended up collapsing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630522</id>
	<title>There is *ALWAYS* a "good" reason !</title>
	<author>redelm</author>
	<datestamp>1262514240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?  Do you think censorship and other oppressions steal theatrically onto the scene in the guise of an Snidely Whiplash or some other obvious villain?</p><p>No, no,  a thousand times no.  Very earnest and well intentioned men promulgate evil most often in the guise of preventing greater evil.  Harm to children, innocents or other spectres are proffered.  These spectacular horrors are given to distract you and "justify" far more pervasive oppressions.  Searching your underwear so an airplane does not crash.  Using the spectacular size difference to hide an even more enormous frequency difference.</p><p>Even if the "riots" are not exaggerated hyperbole (which would not surprise me), then the serious question is why such people have been so stressed they have only rioting as an outlet.  Because if it is not one trigger, it will be some other.  Simple disagreeing, disagreeable or even insulting information does not drive normal people to violence.  That is way up the ladder of provocation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ?
Do you think censorship and other oppressions steal theatrically onto the scene in the guise of an Snidely Whiplash or some other obvious villain ? No , no , a thousand times no .
Very earnest and well intentioned men promulgate evil most often in the guise of preventing greater evil .
Harm to children , innocents or other spectres are proffered .
These spectacular horrors are given to distract you and " justify " far more pervasive oppressions .
Searching your underwear so an airplane does not crash .
Using the spectacular size difference to hide an even more enormous frequency difference.Even if the " riots " are not exaggerated hyperbole ( which would not surprise me ) , then the serious question is why such people have been so stressed they have only rioting as an outlet .
Because if it is not one trigger , it will be some other .
Simple disagreeing , disagreeable or even insulting information does not drive normal people to violence .
That is way up the ladder of provocation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?
Do you think censorship and other oppressions steal theatrically onto the scene in the guise of an Snidely Whiplash or some other obvious villain?No, no,  a thousand times no.
Very earnest and well intentioned men promulgate evil most often in the guise of preventing greater evil.
Harm to children, innocents or other spectres are proffered.
These spectacular horrors are given to distract you and "justify" far more pervasive oppressions.
Searching your underwear so an airplane does not crash.
Using the spectacular size difference to hide an even more enormous frequency difference.Even if the "riots" are not exaggerated hyperbole (which would not surprise me), then the serious question is why such people have been so stressed they have only rioting as an outlet.
Because if it is not one trigger, it will be some other.
Simple disagreeing, disagreeable or even insulting information does not drive normal people to violence.
That is way up the ladder of provocation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631786</id>
	<title>Re:the real problem: India Police</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262535480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The real problem is the Indian Police. They will act for private vested interests. Greasing of palms happens all the time. There are middlemen who can link you up to corrupt Police officers if you are willing to play the game.</p><p>Indian Police "Cyber Crime" will do anything. They sent a Cease and Desist to have a cartoon taken down. The letter is here:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?NoticeID=26127" title="chillingeffects.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?NoticeID=26127</a> [chillingeffects.org]</p><p>Indian Police has a deal with Google by which Google supplies IP addresses of bloggers (if they use blogspot.com or Orkut) when Indian Police asks. No real justification is needed. The Police are ordinarily expected to investigate but they will just hand the IP address over to their "client". The blogger does not need to be in India, so be aware how big this hole can be. I know of private parties using Indian Police in this manner to obtain the IP addresses of a blogger in some other country and then launch an Anton Piller civil search order as part of a SLAPP suit. This is clearly a SLAPP situation, then we have <a href="http://speakoutened.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/blogger-resisting-anton-piller-search/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow"> a blogger resisting Anton Piller search</a> [wordpress.com].</p><p>The problem is that the Police have excessive powers in India and they abuse it without accountability.  They have even <a href="http://rtsf.wordpress.com/2009/08/15/indian-police-murders-unarmed-man-in-custody/" title="wordpress.com" rel="nofollow">killed unarmed men in custody</a> [wordpress.com] so what to speak of shutting down a website ?</p><p>The Ruchika case is a recent one: <a href="http://oh-my-india.posterous.com/india-police-protectors-or-perpetrators" title="posterous.com" rel="nofollow">Indian Police: Protectors or Perpetrators? by J.Srinivasan </a> [posterous.com] in which a powerful Police officer abused his powers to force a young girl to suicide; and this has taken 18 years to come to the court.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The real problem is the Indian Police .
They will act for private vested interests .
Greasing of palms happens all the time .
There are middlemen who can link you up to corrupt Police officers if you are willing to play the game.Indian Police " Cyber Crime " will do anything .
They sent a Cease and Desist to have a cartoon taken down .
The letter is here :       http : //www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi ? NoticeID = 26127 [ chillingeffects.org ] Indian Police has a deal with Google by which Google supplies IP addresses of bloggers ( if they use blogspot.com or Orkut ) when Indian Police asks .
No real justification is needed .
The Police are ordinarily expected to investigate but they will just hand the IP address over to their " client " .
The blogger does not need to be in India , so be aware how big this hole can be .
I know of private parties using Indian Police in this manner to obtain the IP addresses of a blogger in some other country and then launch an Anton Piller civil search order as part of a SLAPP suit .
This is clearly a SLAPP situation , then we have a blogger resisting Anton Piller search [ wordpress.com ] .The problem is that the Police have excessive powers in India and they abuse it without accountability .
They have even killed unarmed men in custody [ wordpress.com ] so what to speak of shutting down a website ? The Ruchika case is a recent one : Indian Police : Protectors or Perpetrators ?
by J.Srinivasan [ posterous.com ] in which a powerful Police officer abused his powers to force a young girl to suicide ; and this has taken 18 years to come to the court .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The real problem is the Indian Police.
They will act for private vested interests.
Greasing of palms happens all the time.
There are middlemen who can link you up to corrupt Police officers if you are willing to play the game.Indian Police "Cyber Crime" will do anything.
They sent a Cease and Desist to have a cartoon taken down.
The letter is here:
      http://www.chillingeffects.org/notice.cgi?NoticeID=26127 [chillingeffects.org]Indian Police has a deal with Google by which Google supplies IP addresses of bloggers (if they use blogspot.com or Orkut) when Indian Police asks.
No real justification is needed.
The Police are ordinarily expected to investigate but they will just hand the IP address over to their "client".
The blogger does not need to be in India, so be aware how big this hole can be.
I know of private parties using Indian Police in this manner to obtain the IP addresses of a blogger in some other country and then launch an Anton Piller civil search order as part of a SLAPP suit.
This is clearly a SLAPP situation, then we have  a blogger resisting Anton Piller search [wordpress.com].The problem is that the Police have excessive powers in India and they abuse it without accountability.
They have even killed unarmed men in custody [wordpress.com] so what to speak of shutting down a website ?The Ruchika case is a recent one: Indian Police: Protectors or Perpetrators?
by J.Srinivasan  [posterous.com] in which a powerful Police officer abused his powers to force a young girl to suicide; and this has taken 18 years to come to the court.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630880</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262521020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots?</p><p>Last time I checked, it seemed I live in the West (Brazil) -- and we do have laws here which limit free speech.</p><p>&gt; And even then Islamic idiots try to kill them (look at the Danish cartoonist issue) when free speech is protected by law.</p><p>Careful! First, were they really Islamic? It's easy for someone to purport being someone else... second, I didn't all the cartoons, but I suppose they are light and some fanatic idiots used it as an excuse to invoke a retaliation -- if the cartoonist is really offensive he would be punished (at least in my country). Please notice that Danmark is neither Brazil nor the US: your local laws might not apply there...<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-P</p><p>&gt; India needs to address this problem themselves by increasing free speech, not by trying to shut it down.</p><p>Our laws wrt prejudice aim to balance free speech with respect, which we deem an undeniable right. If someone is persecuted -- even if by the whole population -- on the grounds of any prejudice, s/he should have official protection. That's what we are required to do by law. So, yes, we also limit free speech like India.</p><p>Regarding the US, only its citizens have a say on this; same thing for India, I think.</p><p>PS: As an aside, all ACs are subject to automatic censoring here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. (and I recently was subject to it). Let's fix things on our backyard, before talking about others, shall we?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; I mean , is the west the only place where people can say " offensive " things without riots ? Last time I checked , it seemed I live in the West ( Brazil ) -- and we do have laws here which limit free speech. &gt; And even then Islamic idiots try to kill them ( look at the Danish cartoonist issue ) when free speech is protected by law.Careful !
First , were they really Islamic ?
It 's easy for someone to purport being someone else... second , I did n't all the cartoons , but I suppose they are light and some fanatic idiots used it as an excuse to invoke a retaliation -- if the cartoonist is really offensive he would be punished ( at least in my country ) .
Please notice that Danmark is neither Brazil nor the US : your local laws might not apply there... ; -P &gt; India needs to address this problem themselves by increasing free speech , not by trying to shut it down.Our laws wrt prejudice aim to balance free speech with respect , which we deem an undeniable right .
If someone is persecuted -- even if by the whole population -- on the grounds of any prejudice , s/he should have official protection .
That 's what we are required to do by law .
So , yes , we also limit free speech like India.Regarding the US , only its citizens have a say on this ; same thing for India , I think.PS : As an aside , all ACs are subject to automatic censoring here on / .
( and I recently was subject to it ) .
Let 's fix things on our backyard , before talking about others , shall we ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots?Last time I checked, it seemed I live in the West (Brazil) -- and we do have laws here which limit free speech.&gt; And even then Islamic idiots try to kill them (look at the Danish cartoonist issue) when free speech is protected by law.Careful!
First, were they really Islamic?
It's easy for someone to purport being someone else... second, I didn't all the cartoons, but I suppose they are light and some fanatic idiots used it as an excuse to invoke a retaliation -- if the cartoonist is really offensive he would be punished (at least in my country).
Please notice that Danmark is neither Brazil nor the US: your local laws might not apply there... ;-P&gt; India needs to address this problem themselves by increasing free speech, not by trying to shut it down.Our laws wrt prejudice aim to balance free speech with respect, which we deem an undeniable right.
If someone is persecuted -- even if by the whole population -- on the grounds of any prejudice, s/he should have official protection.
That's what we are required to do by law.
So, yes, we also limit free speech like India.Regarding the US, only its citizens have a say on this; same thing for India, I think.PS: As an aside, all ACs are subject to automatic censoring here on /.
(and I recently was subject to it).
Let's fix things on our backyard, before talking about others, shall we?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630254</id>
	<title>Re:I'm beginning to doubt the value of free speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262552040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Free speech is just noise without a bullshit filter. Look in your spam box for 99.97\% "free speech". If society is to save itself, it will need to learn the difference between speech and honest-to-god information.</p></div><p>Spam is \_NOT\_ "free speech".</p><p>Free speech protects speech it does not provide an audience.<br>(aka, the right for you to swing your fist ends at my nose.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free speech is just noise without a bullshit filter .
Look in your spam box for 99.97 \ % " free speech " .
If society is to save itself , it will need to learn the difference between speech and honest-to-god information.Spam is \ _NOT \ _ " free speech " .Free speech protects speech it does not provide an audience .
( aka , the right for you to swing your fist ends at my nose .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free speech is just noise without a bullshit filter.
Look in your spam box for 99.97\% "free speech".
If society is to save itself, it will need to learn the difference between speech and honest-to-god information.Spam is \_NOT\_ "free speech".Free speech protects speech it does not provide an audience.
(aka, the right for you to swing your fist ends at my nose.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631200</id>
	<title>Re:the real problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262528100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does n't look like MIT is teaching you a lot or exposing you to much of the world to make such categorical statements. While I oppose any censorship including the current India/Google one, the situation is that a majority of the 1 billion people are illiterate and many are desperately poor. There are elements within in the power structure who very easy set off conflagrations that lead to a lot of violence. Can you imagine the kind and number of law &amp; order people needed to manage this? (It will look like a police state and your complaints will be different then..) Yeah, the country's polity has a major problem: they have to improve education and "civility". How do you do that overnight? This is a management issue, I think. The middle classes do love their freedoms but they don't want their homes to be pelted or blood on the streets. When was the past time you managed a billion people, belmolis?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't look like MIT is teaching you a lot or exposing you to much of the world to make such categorical statements .
While I oppose any censorship including the current India/Google one , the situation is that a majority of the 1 billion people are illiterate and many are desperately poor .
There are elements within in the power structure who very easy set off conflagrations that lead to a lot of violence .
Can you imagine the kind and number of law &amp; order people needed to manage this ?
( It will look like a police state and your complaints will be different then.. ) Yeah , the country 's polity has a major problem : they have to improve education and " civility " .
How do you do that overnight ?
This is a management issue , I think .
The middle classes do love their freedoms but they do n't want their homes to be pelted or blood on the streets .
When was the past time you managed a billion people , belmolis ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does n't look like MIT is teaching you a lot or exposing you to much of the world to make such categorical statements.
While I oppose any censorship including the current India/Google one, the situation is that a majority of the 1 billion people are illiterate and many are desperately poor.
There are elements within in the power structure who very easy set off conflagrations that lead to a lot of violence.
Can you imagine the kind and number of law &amp; order people needed to manage this?
(It will look like a police state and your complaints will be different then..) Yeah, the country's polity has a major problem: they have to improve education and "civility".
How do you do that overnight?
This is a management issue, I think.
The middle classes do love their freedoms but they don't want their homes to be pelted or blood on the streets.
When was the past time you managed a billion people, belmolis?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630358</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630422</id>
	<title>Re:I'm beginning to doubt the value of free speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262512200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"..difference between speech and honest-to-god information" - as determined by who?  You?  Freaking get a clue.  Libtard do your homework.  For instance you'd find that walmart has saved the average american family over $2k a year by driving down prices.  That may not mean anything to you, but it does to some.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" ..difference between speech and honest-to-god information " - as determined by who ?
You ? Freaking get a clue .
Libtard do your homework .
For instance you 'd find that walmart has saved the average american family over $ 2k a year by driving down prices .
That may not mean anything to you , but it does to some .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"..difference between speech and honest-to-god information" - as determined by who?
You?  Freaking get a clue.
Libtard do your homework.
For instance you'd find that walmart has saved the average american family over $2k a year by driving down prices.
That may not mean anything to you, but it does to some.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630230</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>Darkness404</author>
	<datestamp>1262551800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>You mean something like the Westboro Baptist Church, the group that goes to soldiers funerals with big signs that say that the soldier's death was punishment from God because the US tolerates homosexuality? Oddly enough they have never caused a real riot, yeah, some people tried to beat them up and some guy tried to set fire to one of their garages but that was it. No riots, no nothing. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro\_Baptist\_Church" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro\_Baptist\_Church</a> [wikipedia.org] for more info</htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean something like the Westboro Baptist Church , the group that goes to soldiers funerals with big signs that say that the soldier 's death was punishment from God because the US tolerates homosexuality ?
Oddly enough they have never caused a real riot , yeah , some people tried to beat them up and some guy tried to set fire to one of their garages but that was it .
No riots , no nothing .
See http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro \ _Baptist \ _Church [ wikipedia.org ] for more info</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean something like the Westboro Baptist Church, the group that goes to soldiers funerals with big signs that say that the soldier's death was punishment from God because the US tolerates homosexuality?
Oddly enough they have never caused a real riot, yeah, some people tried to beat them up and some guy tried to set fire to one of their garages but that was it.
No riots, no nothing.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro\_Baptist\_Church [wikipedia.org] for more info</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630056</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630244</id>
	<title>Re:I'm beginning to doubt the value of free speech</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1262551920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Aww...someone needs a hug!  Did that nasty evil free press advocate ideas that you don't agree with?  Funny how it's all about how the press needs to be free and unfettered...up until the point that they become TOO free and start disagreeing.  </p><p>It's especially distressing to see ideas like "information" and "truth" spouted by post-modernists.  There is no objective truth, only different points of view, all of which are equally valid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Aww...someone needs a hug !
Did that nasty evil free press advocate ideas that you do n't agree with ?
Funny how it 's all about how the press needs to be free and unfettered...up until the point that they become TOO free and start disagreeing .
It 's especially distressing to see ideas like " information " and " truth " spouted by post-modernists .
There is no objective truth , only different points of view , all of which are equally valid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Aww...someone needs a hug!
Did that nasty evil free press advocate ideas that you don't agree with?
Funny how it's all about how the press needs to be free and unfettered...up until the point that they become TOO free and start disagreeing.
It's especially distressing to see ideas like "information" and "truth" spouted by post-modernists.
There is no objective truth, only different points of view, all of which are equally valid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630942</id>
	<title>Things are far more political than they seem..</title>
	<author>MasJ</author>
	<datestamp>1262522400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem in India is not of religion but the deadly cocktail that religion and politics create. I do support free speech and honestly think it's wrong [and a tad bit retarded] for the government to ask Google to shut down an Orkut group because of hate speech. The problem with riots in India is often due to politically motivated goals. A politician can polarise the public one way or another and thus sway the polls in his favour. This is the thing that pisses me off the most over here. People here are really intelligent, educated, compassionate, considerate, but if you drop the R-Bomb on them, they'll start acting like crazy lunatics the next second.</p><p>Censorship has always existed in India in a big way. You know, Fahrenheit 9/11 released here much later than in the rest of the world. But that's just the tip of the ice berg. The law and order situation prevents folks from using "free-speech" as a defence. If you DO say something against someone powerful and influential and said person finds out [and is affected], he'll surely send his goons to even the score. Sure, you won't get imprisoned for 'free-speech' but you might get worse.</p><p>This is certainly not the "END" of free-speech. And no, India is nothing like China at this point of time. Hell, I went to China and the folks there on the streets didn't know that something big had happened in Tienanmen Square. Now THAT IS CENSORSHIP!</p><p>Indians in general don't value free speech. We're a culture of followers [follow religion, follow elders, follow leaders, follow everyone] and any deviant (free-speech dude, atheist, etc. etc...) will probably get shut down. In all practicality, you can criticise religion, politics, people, the prime minister, policies and even the pope. Just be careful of who you do it in front of. You can be atheist but don't try and explain it to someone who is religious because you'll explain your beliefs much better than them and just end up confused as to why the other person still follows whatever they do. But that's probably just the same anywhere in the world. "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything" - Nietzsche</p><p>And so what if they shut down an orkut group ? You think people can't express themselves any other place on the internet ? Basically, the Indian government just likes to exercise it's power where it can. Those are very few places.</p><p>Oh but as far as western hypocrisy is concerned. Come on guys, don't tell me about free-speech in your countries. Sure, I know that the new 'politically correct' USA has many issues with using certain words, phrases, etc. But look at how Switzerland banned the construction of Minarets as they are a symbol of Islam inspite of having a decent Muslim population. Things aren't as rosy in the west as they're made out to be. France banned the wearing of headgear for muslim women. That's religious expression. What about those dudes in the US who were "investigated" by the FBI for posting some random stuff online post 9/11 ?</p><p>Basically, everywhere sucks. Just relatively more or less. India is pretty free by most standards.</p><p>Sure, we have a problem in India. It's not as bad as China [not even comparable], and it'll never be, as long as we are allowed the free speech to admit to it. I hope though that the censorship folks realise that this is an exercise in futility. They never achieve any real censorship in India anyway. All our networks (Radio, tv, news, internet, word of mouth..) are way too out of control anyhow.</p><p>Besides, just chalk this one up to the Indian government being retarded as usual. Just add it to the list that already has the shutting down of public Wi-Fi after the Mumbai attacks [no coffee shop Wi-Fi anymore<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(], requiring 10 verification documents to get a mobile sim, requiring to fill up a piece of paper everytime when entering the country and giving it with your passport and don't even get me started on the swine-flu line at the airports, plus all the other bizarre things that they think actually achieve something. These aren't leaders, these are politicians pretending to lead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem in India is not of religion but the deadly cocktail that religion and politics create .
I do support free speech and honestly think it 's wrong [ and a tad bit retarded ] for the government to ask Google to shut down an Orkut group because of hate speech .
The problem with riots in India is often due to politically motivated goals .
A politician can polarise the public one way or another and thus sway the polls in his favour .
This is the thing that pisses me off the most over here .
People here are really intelligent , educated , compassionate , considerate , but if you drop the R-Bomb on them , they 'll start acting like crazy lunatics the next second.Censorship has always existed in India in a big way .
You know , Fahrenheit 9/11 released here much later than in the rest of the world .
But that 's just the tip of the ice berg .
The law and order situation prevents folks from using " free-speech " as a defence .
If you DO say something against someone powerful and influential and said person finds out [ and is affected ] , he 'll surely send his goons to even the score .
Sure , you wo n't get imprisoned for 'free-speech ' but you might get worse.This is certainly not the " END " of free-speech .
And no , India is nothing like China at this point of time .
Hell , I went to China and the folks there on the streets did n't know that something big had happened in Tienanmen Square .
Now THAT IS CENSORSHIP ! Indians in general do n't value free speech .
We 're a culture of followers [ follow religion , follow elders , follow leaders , follow everyone ] and any deviant ( free-speech dude , atheist , etc .
etc... ) will probably get shut down .
In all practicality , you can criticise religion , politics , people , the prime minister , policies and even the pope .
Just be careful of who you do it in front of .
You can be atheist but do n't try and explain it to someone who is religious because you 'll explain your beliefs much better than them and just end up confused as to why the other person still follows whatever they do .
But that 's probably just the same anywhere in the world .
" A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything " - NietzscheAnd so what if they shut down an orkut group ?
You think people ca n't express themselves any other place on the internet ?
Basically , the Indian government just likes to exercise it 's power where it can .
Those are very few places.Oh but as far as western hypocrisy is concerned .
Come on guys , do n't tell me about free-speech in your countries .
Sure , I know that the new 'politically correct ' USA has many issues with using certain words , phrases , etc .
But look at how Switzerland banned the construction of Minarets as they are a symbol of Islam inspite of having a decent Muslim population .
Things are n't as rosy in the west as they 're made out to be .
France banned the wearing of headgear for muslim women .
That 's religious expression .
What about those dudes in the US who were " investigated " by the FBI for posting some random stuff online post 9/11 ? Basically , everywhere sucks .
Just relatively more or less .
India is pretty free by most standards.Sure , we have a problem in India .
It 's not as bad as China [ not even comparable ] , and it 'll never be , as long as we are allowed the free speech to admit to it .
I hope though that the censorship folks realise that this is an exercise in futility .
They never achieve any real censorship in India anyway .
All our networks ( Radio , tv , news , internet , word of mouth.. ) are way too out of control anyhow.Besides , just chalk this one up to the Indian government being retarded as usual .
Just add it to the list that already has the shutting down of public Wi-Fi after the Mumbai attacks [ no coffee shop Wi-Fi anymore : ( ] , requiring 10 verification documents to get a mobile sim , requiring to fill up a piece of paper everytime when entering the country and giving it with your passport and do n't even get me started on the swine-flu line at the airports , plus all the other bizarre things that they think actually achieve something .
These are n't leaders , these are politicians pretending to lead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem in India is not of religion but the deadly cocktail that religion and politics create.
I do support free speech and honestly think it's wrong [and a tad bit retarded] for the government to ask Google to shut down an Orkut group because of hate speech.
The problem with riots in India is often due to politically motivated goals.
A politician can polarise the public one way or another and thus sway the polls in his favour.
This is the thing that pisses me off the most over here.
People here are really intelligent, educated, compassionate, considerate, but if you drop the R-Bomb on them, they'll start acting like crazy lunatics the next second.Censorship has always existed in India in a big way.
You know, Fahrenheit 9/11 released here much later than in the rest of the world.
But that's just the tip of the ice berg.
The law and order situation prevents folks from using "free-speech" as a defence.
If you DO say something against someone powerful and influential and said person finds out [and is affected], he'll surely send his goons to even the score.
Sure, you won't get imprisoned for 'free-speech' but you might get worse.This is certainly not the "END" of free-speech.
And no, India is nothing like China at this point of time.
Hell, I went to China and the folks there on the streets didn't know that something big had happened in Tienanmen Square.
Now THAT IS CENSORSHIP!Indians in general don't value free speech.
We're a culture of followers [follow religion, follow elders, follow leaders, follow everyone] and any deviant (free-speech dude, atheist, etc.
etc...) will probably get shut down.
In all practicality, you can criticise religion, politics, people, the prime minister, policies and even the pope.
Just be careful of who you do it in front of.
You can be atheist but don't try and explain it to someone who is religious because you'll explain your beliefs much better than them and just end up confused as to why the other person still follows whatever they do.
But that's probably just the same anywhere in the world.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything" - NietzscheAnd so what if they shut down an orkut group ?
You think people can't express themselves any other place on the internet ?
Basically, the Indian government just likes to exercise it's power where it can.
Those are very few places.Oh but as far as western hypocrisy is concerned.
Come on guys, don't tell me about free-speech in your countries.
Sure, I know that the new 'politically correct' USA has many issues with using certain words, phrases, etc.
But look at how Switzerland banned the construction of Minarets as they are a symbol of Islam inspite of having a decent Muslim population.
Things aren't as rosy in the west as they're made out to be.
France banned the wearing of headgear for muslim women.
That's religious expression.
What about those dudes in the US who were "investigated" by the FBI for posting some random stuff online post 9/11 ?Basically, everywhere sucks.
Just relatively more or less.
India is pretty free by most standards.Sure, we have a problem in India.
It's not as bad as China [not even comparable], and it'll never be, as long as we are allowed the free speech to admit to it.
I hope though that the censorship folks realise that this is an exercise in futility.
They never achieve any real censorship in India anyway.
All our networks (Radio, tv, news, internet, word of mouth..) are way too out of control anyhow.Besides, just chalk this one up to the Indian government being retarded as usual.
Just add it to the list that already has the shutting down of public Wi-Fi after the Mumbai attacks [no coffee shop Wi-Fi anymore :(], requiring 10 verification documents to get a mobile sim, requiring to fill up a piece of paper everytime when entering the country and giving it with your passport and don't even get me started on the swine-flu line at the airports, plus all the other bizarre things that they think actually achieve something.
These aren't leaders, these are politicians pretending to lead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30637380</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical Standards</title>
	<author>SnowZero</author>
	<datestamp>1262538600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When they agreed to censor the internet in China, their excuse was "If we don't do this, somebody else will."</p></div><p>The excuse was more that "if you don't do this, you will not do business in China".  It's pretty normal that only businesses that follow the laws of a country are allowed to do business in that countries.  China is not afraid to <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=china+blocks+google" title="google.com">block Google</a> [google.com] or any other website for that matter.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That pretty much puts the lie to their "Do No Evil" motto.</p></div><p>It's "Don't be evil" not "Do no evil".  If you're trying to criticize a company's motto at least get the motto right; or did you learn everything about what Google does via discussion sites rather than news, reputable blogs, or your own research?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Google needs to decide whether they really want to "do no evil" or whether they just want to make a profit. They really can't have it both ways. And by traditional Western ethical standards, censorship is EVIL.</p></div><p>Do you consider Germany and France to be evil?  They both require censorship of Nazi and WWII-related stuff (see <a href="http://www.serendipity.li/cda.html" title="serendipity.li">here</a> [serendipity.li]).  I may not agree with it, but I can see why they do it; is it really "evil", and will you apply the same standard to them that you are applying to Google?  What if one nation decided that the age of consent for making pornography is 19 instead of 18?  Is that censorship evil?  The Netherlands uses 16 instead of 18, making some of their porn illegal in most of the rest of the world (see <a href="http://www.ageofconsent.com/netherlands.htm" title="ageofconsent.com">here</a> [ageofconsent.com]).  There are apparently plans to change this to match other countries, but the point still stands; are all the non-Netherlands countries evil?  I don't think you've really thought out your position; it's not black and white and there is a lot of complexity in laws and ethics.</p><p>Also, western values are not the last word for the world.  If you want other countries to be more like us, you're better off trying to convince them why they should adopt those values, rather than advocating that our companies should ignore their laws.  Breaking their laws could easily just strengthen their resolve and make them hate westerners more.</p><p><i>Disclaimer: I am a Google employee, but I cite my sources.  Feel free to make up your own mind.  These are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When they agreed to censor the internet in China , their excuse was " If we do n't do this , somebody else will .
" The excuse was more that " if you do n't do this , you will not do business in China " .
It 's pretty normal that only businesses that follow the laws of a country are allowed to do business in that countries .
China is not afraid to block Google [ google.com ] or any other website for that matter.That pretty much puts the lie to their " Do No Evil " motto.It 's " Do n't be evil " not " Do no evil " .
If you 're trying to criticize a company 's motto at least get the motto right ; or did you learn everything about what Google does via discussion sites rather than news , reputable blogs , or your own research ? Google needs to decide whether they really want to " do no evil " or whether they just want to make a profit .
They really ca n't have it both ways .
And by traditional Western ethical standards , censorship is EVIL.Do you consider Germany and France to be evil ?
They both require censorship of Nazi and WWII-related stuff ( see here [ serendipity.li ] ) .
I may not agree with it , but I can see why they do it ; is it really " evil " , and will you apply the same standard to them that you are applying to Google ?
What if one nation decided that the age of consent for making pornography is 19 instead of 18 ?
Is that censorship evil ?
The Netherlands uses 16 instead of 18 , making some of their porn illegal in most of the rest of the world ( see here [ ageofconsent.com ] ) .
There are apparently plans to change this to match other countries , but the point still stands ; are all the non-Netherlands countries evil ?
I do n't think you 've really thought out your position ; it 's not black and white and there is a lot of complexity in laws and ethics.Also , western values are not the last word for the world .
If you want other countries to be more like us , you 're better off trying to convince them why they should adopt those values , rather than advocating that our companies should ignore their laws .
Breaking their laws could easily just strengthen their resolve and make them hate westerners more.Disclaimer : I am a Google employee , but I cite my sources .
Feel free to make up your own mind .
These are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When they agreed to censor the internet in China, their excuse was "If we don't do this, somebody else will.
"The excuse was more that "if you don't do this, you will not do business in China".
It's pretty normal that only businesses that follow the laws of a country are allowed to do business in that countries.
China is not afraid to block Google [google.com] or any other website for that matter.That pretty much puts the lie to their "Do No Evil" motto.It's "Don't be evil" not "Do no evil".
If you're trying to criticize a company's motto at least get the motto right; or did you learn everything about what Google does via discussion sites rather than news, reputable blogs, or your own research?Google needs to decide whether they really want to "do no evil" or whether they just want to make a profit.
They really can't have it both ways.
And by traditional Western ethical standards, censorship is EVIL.Do you consider Germany and France to be evil?
They both require censorship of Nazi and WWII-related stuff (see here [serendipity.li]).
I may not agree with it, but I can see why they do it; is it really "evil", and will you apply the same standard to them that you are applying to Google?
What if one nation decided that the age of consent for making pornography is 19 instead of 18?
Is that censorship evil?
The Netherlands uses 16 instead of 18, making some of their porn illegal in most of the rest of the world (see here [ageofconsent.com]).
There are apparently plans to change this to match other countries, but the point still stands; are all the non-Netherlands countries evil?
I don't think you've really thought out your position; it's not black and white and there is a lot of complexity in laws and ethics.Also, western values are not the last word for the world.
If you want other countries to be more like us, you're better off trying to convince them why they should adopt those values, rather than advocating that our companies should ignore their laws.
Breaking their laws could easily just strengthen their resolve and make them hate westerners more.Disclaimer: I am a Google employee, but I cite my sources.
Feel free to make up your own mind.
These are my own opinions and do not necessarily reflect those of my employer.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632198</id>
	<title>Is there such a thing as free speech?</title>
	<author>wesleyneo</author>
	<datestamp>1262539920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.australianhumanitiesreview.org/archive/Issue-February-1998/fish.html" title="australian...review.org" rel="nofollow">Here</a> [australian...review.org] is an interview of Prof. Stanley Fish, author of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Theres-Such-Thing-Free-Speech/dp/0195093836" title="amazon.com" rel="nofollow"> <i>There's No Such Thing As Free Speech: And It's a Good Thing, Too</i> </a> [amazon.com]. I hope this brings something new to the discussion here.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Here [ australian...review.org ] is an interview of Prof. Stanley Fish , author of There 's No Such Thing As Free Speech : And It 's a Good Thing , Too [ amazon.com ] .
I hope this brings something new to the discussion here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Here [australian...review.org] is an interview of Prof. Stanley Fish, author of  There's No Such Thing As Free Speech: And It's a Good Thing, Too  [amazon.com].
I hope this brings something new to the discussion here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631574</id>
	<title>"weighing the harm of free speech"</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1262533140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>India does value free speech and political speech. But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.</p></div><p>Sorry, you cant have it both ways.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>India does value free speech and political speech .
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.Sorry , you cant have it both ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>India does value free speech and political speech.
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.Sorry, you cant have it both ways.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630024</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1262548860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots?</i> </p><p>Yes.  Did Lord Rama include John Stuart Mill in the Ramayana?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean , is the west the only place where people can say " offensive " things without riots ?
Yes. Did Lord Rama include John Stuart Mill in the Ramayana ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots?
Yes.  Did Lord Rama include John Stuart Mill in the Ramayana?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630956</id>
	<title>OK, this is the hypocrisy.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262522640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How come when some other country forces Google, Apple, whatever, to do something and they trot out the "we're just following the laws of the land" excuse, yet when they have to follow some law here they have no problem fighting it legally? Why don't they just "follow the laws of the USA" as blindly as they do in Yellow China, etc.?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How come when some other country forces Google , Apple , whatever , to do something and they trot out the " we 're just following the laws of the land " excuse , yet when they have to follow some law here they have no problem fighting it legally ?
Why do n't they just " follow the laws of the USA " as blindly as they do in Yellow China , etc .
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How come when some other country forces Google, Apple, whatever, to do something and they trot out the "we're just following the laws of the land" excuse, yet when they have to follow some law here they have no problem fighting it legally?
Why don't they just "follow the laws of the USA" as blindly as they do in Yellow China, etc.
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631588</id>
	<title>Re:Free?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1262533200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Freetrade != freedom. Also, if you want to include the WTO into the mix, its just the opposite as everyone has to conform to the least common denominator.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Freetrade ! = freedom .
Also , if you want to include the WTO into the mix , its just the opposite as everyone has to conform to the least common denominator .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Freetrade != freedom.
Also, if you want to include the WTO into the mix, its just the opposite as everyone has to conform to the least common denominator.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30648596</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>ananthap</author>
	<datestamp>1262610120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree there.

You don't like a website, don't visit it. Tell your friends not to visit it. Likely if it was a few nuts, the site will lose importance anyway.

But don't ban it. Don't get the provider to shut it down.

End</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree there .
You do n't like a website , do n't visit it .
Tell your friends not to visit it .
Likely if it was a few nuts , the site will lose importance anyway .
But do n't ban it .
Do n't get the provider to shut it down .
End</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree there.
You don't like a website, don't visit it.
Tell your friends not to visit it.
Likely if it was a few nuts, the site will lose importance anyway.
But don't ban it.
Don't get the provider to shut it down.
End</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630360</id>
	<title>Re:Now what?</title>
	<author>Ethanol-fueled</author>
	<datestamp>1262511180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Amen, brutha<br> <br>

Also from the summary:<blockquote><div><p> If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site, that could start riots.</p></div></blockquote><p>

Pffffffff haHA<b>HAAAAAAAAAAAAA!</b> Your Mickey Mouse gods don't mean shit to me, Habib, I'm an American citizen!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen , brutha Also from the summary : If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site , that could start riots .
Pffffffff haHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA !
Your Mickey Mouse gods do n't mean shit to me , Habib , I 'm an American citizen !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen, brutha 

Also from the summary: If somebody starts abusing Lord Rama on a Web site, that could start riots.
Pffffffff haHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Your Mickey Mouse gods don't mean shit to me, Habib, I'm an American citizen!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629828</id>
	<title>Free?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262460660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Free Trade doesn't seem to be doing much for freedom around the world.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Free Trade does n't seem to be doing much for freedom around the world .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free Trade doesn't seem to be doing much for freedom around the world.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630554</id>
	<title>Re:Free?</title>
	<author>c6gunner</author>
	<datestamp>1262514720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The big benefit of free trade isn't increased freedoms around the world, but the lessening of armed conflict.  Nations which trade with each other tend to do better than isolationist nations, but they also become dependent on each other.  Nation which depend on each other are much less likely to wage war on each other.  Whether they both grant the same freedoms to their citizens is largely irrelevant.</p><p>Of course, generally speaking, increased wealth (average income) does tend to lead to increased education and an increase in freedom.  However, that's a much longer process.  Most of India is still dirt poor - if you expect to see them becoming more liberal any time soon, you're going to be very disappointed.  I know that we live in the "Gimme It Right Now!" era but, in this case, you're going to have to exercise some patience.  There's no moores law for human rights.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The big benefit of free trade is n't increased freedoms around the world , but the lessening of armed conflict .
Nations which trade with each other tend to do better than isolationist nations , but they also become dependent on each other .
Nation which depend on each other are much less likely to wage war on each other .
Whether they both grant the same freedoms to their citizens is largely irrelevant.Of course , generally speaking , increased wealth ( average income ) does tend to lead to increased education and an increase in freedom .
However , that 's a much longer process .
Most of India is still dirt poor - if you expect to see them becoming more liberal any time soon , you 're going to be very disappointed .
I know that we live in the " Gim me It Right Now !
" era but , in this case , you 're going to have to exercise some patience .
There 's no moores law for human rights .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big benefit of free trade isn't increased freedoms around the world, but the lessening of armed conflict.
Nations which trade with each other tend to do better than isolationist nations, but they also become dependent on each other.
Nation which depend on each other are much less likely to wage war on each other.
Whether they both grant the same freedoms to their citizens is largely irrelevant.Of course, generally speaking, increased wealth (average income) does tend to lead to increased education and an increase in freedom.
However, that's a much longer process.
Most of India is still dirt poor - if you expect to see them becoming more liberal any time soon, you're going to be very disappointed.
I know that we live in the "Gimme It Right Now!
" era but, in this case, you're going to have to exercise some patience.
There's no moores law for human rights.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632052</id>
	<title>Re:I'm beginning to doubt the value of free speech</title>
	<author>Nyder</author>
	<datestamp>1262538480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about you, but I've learned hundreds of different ways to spell viagra thanks to spam</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about you , but I 've learned hundreds of different ways to spell viagra thanks to spam</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about you, but I've learned hundreds of different ways to spell viagra thanks to spam</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629926</id>
	<title>Hmmm...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262461500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> So would I be correct in asserting that the cowardly douchebags would rather stifle something as central to democracy as free speech than put up with a few rioting morons? </p><p> Or is it that the people who get to make such assertions fear free speech because it would expose them for the money-grubbing, honourless thieves that they are? </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So would I be correct in asserting that the cowardly douchebags would rather stifle something as central to democracy as free speech than put up with a few rioting morons ?
Or is it that the people who get to make such assertions fear free speech because it would expose them for the money-grubbing , honourless thieves that they are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> So would I be correct in asserting that the cowardly douchebags would rather stifle something as central to democracy as free speech than put up with a few rioting morons?
Or is it that the people who get to make such assertions fear free speech because it would expose them for the money-grubbing, honourless thieves that they are? </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630530</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>Ceriel Nosforit</author>
	<datestamp>1262514300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Islamic" is way too wide a generalization here. Consequence of similar is a confusion of terms leading to communications breakdown and more violence.<br>I propose "extremist", "fundamentalist" without additional qualifier, and even "terrorist" as substitute.</p><p>I hope one day the Persians and their neighbours will realize the AK-47 is the image of evil. Things didn't escalate to this level of brutality when they solved their problems with long knives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Islamic " is way too wide a generalization here .
Consequence of similar is a confusion of terms leading to communications breakdown and more violence.I propose " extremist " , " fundamentalist " without additional qualifier , and even " terrorist " as substitute.I hope one day the Persians and their neighbours will realize the AK-47 is the image of evil .
Things did n't escalate to this level of brutality when they solved their problems with long knives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Islamic" is way too wide a generalization here.
Consequence of similar is a confusion of terms leading to communications breakdown and more violence.I propose "extremist", "fundamentalist" without additional qualifier, and even "terrorist" as substitute.I hope one day the Persians and their neighbours will realize the AK-47 is the image of evil.
Things didn't escalate to this level of brutality when they solved their problems with long knives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630350</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical Standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262510760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Isn't this exactly what free markets and free economy says? Dollar is more important!<br>

An organization has to be agile to earn money. If Google decides that it won't serve China, it would loose revenue, an organization in the US would lose revenue, pay less taxes and that would affect already stretched government and its fiscal deficit? Do you want to go down that path?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't this exactly what free markets and free economy says ?
Dollar is more important !
An organization has to be agile to earn money .
If Google decides that it wo n't serve China , it would loose revenue , an organization in the US would lose revenue , pay less taxes and that would affect already stretched government and its fiscal deficit ?
Do you want to go down that path ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't this exactly what free markets and free economy says?
Dollar is more important!
An organization has to be agile to earn money.
If Google decides that it won't serve China, it would loose revenue, an organization in the US would lose revenue, pay less taxes and that would affect already stretched government and its fiscal deficit?
Do you want to go down that path?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630734</id>
	<title>Have anyone Observed that ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262518320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stories posted from last weeks largely around, Neighbour India and China?<br>Are we Losing out on our important<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./ since holy-days?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stories posted from last weeks largely around , Neighbour India and China ? Are we Losing out on our important ./ since holy-days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stories posted from last weeks largely around, Neighbour India and China?Are we Losing out on our important ./ since holy-days?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630534</id>
	<title>Smells like bullshit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262514360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By definition whatever they were censoring had been on the internet and didn't cause riots, so what's their excuse again?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By definition whatever they were censoring had been on the internet and did n't cause riots , so what 's their excuse again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By definition whatever they were censoring had been on the internet and didn't cause riots, so what's their excuse again?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30653556</id>
	<title>Re:Now what?</title>
	<author>ramana8</author>
	<datestamp>1262697420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While he was alive, Fuck YSR !</htmltext>
<tokenext>While he was alive , Fuck YSR !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While he was alive, Fuck YSR !</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032</id>
	<title>I'm beginning to doubt the value of free speech</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1262548920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Seriously, I'm beginning to question the value of completely free speech. I've spent my entire life so far in support of it, and the free marketplace, but I'm finding more and more, that both are a fiction and always have been!</p><p>The "free" marketplace isn't free, it's a highly unstable situation that's carefully protected by a government that's surprisingly willing to impose on the "freedome" of the marketplace. Until the 1980s, government stepped in many times, repeatedly, over the years, to limit the power of the monopolies in the United States. But after about 1981 or so, we simply stopped caring. And the result has decimated our marketplace! In becoming more "free", we've simply become more monopolistic, where Wal-Mart now delivers some 30\% to 50\% of the consumed goods in the USA.</p><p>This was unheard of before then, but only because the gubbmint stepped in repeatedly to limit the power of (among others) A&amp;P, the mid-20th century equivalent of Wal-Mart. As a percentage of population, Wal-Mart is now at least 5x as big as A&amp;P ever was at its height. Yet Wal-Mart is just one of many vertical monopolies now rearing, to the deafening roar of untrained people who rally and cry for speech and marketplaces free from the controls of the government that was otherwise busy serving their own interests. It's a sad, sad state of affairs.</p><p>In a similar vein, I'm finding that "free speech" never existed. For over a century, there were strict controls on news organizations and reporting agencies - strict policies on libel and a general expectation of truth. This was easily enforced, because there were so few news agencies with the ability to reach a significant percentage of the population. And the result was filtered news and information of generally high-quality.</p><p>But the Internet has changed all that. Even if strict news reporting standards were still in effect, the news organizations would have to compete with the deafening roar of blogs and other "almost news" sites (Slashdot being one of them!) and so the standards would lose all their teeth anyway.</p><p>What journalistic standards is my completely private post written from my armchair going to be held to?</p><p>But the end result is that any whining idiot with an opinion that sounds nice gets lots of play, and real information gets lost in the din of noise and misinformation. Without any expectation of accountability, idiots like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are free to spread their bile and intellectual filth to unwashed masses who haven't developed the means to filter them out, partly due to the falling standards and expectations from our public school system, which has gotten so bad that <a href="http://www.unschooling.com/" title="unschooling.com">no schooling at all</a> [unschooling.com] is often an improvement.</p><p>Free speech is just noise without a bullshit filter. Look in your spam box for 99.97\% "free speech". <b>If society is to save itself, it will need to learn the difference between speech and honest-to-god information. </b></p><p>Right now, it's not looking so good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I 'm beginning to question the value of completely free speech .
I 've spent my entire life so far in support of it , and the free marketplace , but I 'm finding more and more , that both are a fiction and always have been ! The " free " marketplace is n't free , it 's a highly unstable situation that 's carefully protected by a government that 's surprisingly willing to impose on the " freedome " of the marketplace .
Until the 1980s , government stepped in many times , repeatedly , over the years , to limit the power of the monopolies in the United States .
But after about 1981 or so , we simply stopped caring .
And the result has decimated our marketplace !
In becoming more " free " , we 've simply become more monopolistic , where Wal-Mart now delivers some 30 \ % to 50 \ % of the consumed goods in the USA.This was unheard of before then , but only because the gubbmint stepped in repeatedly to limit the power of ( among others ) A&amp;P , the mid-20th century equivalent of Wal-Mart .
As a percentage of population , Wal-Mart is now at least 5x as big as A&amp;P ever was at its height .
Yet Wal-Mart is just one of many vertical monopolies now rearing , to the deafening roar of untrained people who rally and cry for speech and marketplaces free from the controls of the government that was otherwise busy serving their own interests .
It 's a sad , sad state of affairs.In a similar vein , I 'm finding that " free speech " never existed .
For over a century , there were strict controls on news organizations and reporting agencies - strict policies on libel and a general expectation of truth .
This was easily enforced , because there were so few news agencies with the ability to reach a significant percentage of the population .
And the result was filtered news and information of generally high-quality.But the Internet has changed all that .
Even if strict news reporting standards were still in effect , the news organizations would have to compete with the deafening roar of blogs and other " almost news " sites ( Slashdot being one of them !
) and so the standards would lose all their teeth anyway.What journalistic standards is my completely private post written from my armchair going to be held to ? But the end result is that any whining idiot with an opinion that sounds nice gets lots of play , and real information gets lost in the din of noise and misinformation .
Without any expectation of accountability , idiots like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are free to spread their bile and intellectual filth to unwashed masses who have n't developed the means to filter them out , partly due to the falling standards and expectations from our public school system , which has gotten so bad that no schooling at all [ unschooling.com ] is often an improvement.Free speech is just noise without a bullshit filter .
Look in your spam box for 99.97 \ % " free speech " .
If society is to save itself , it will need to learn the difference between speech and honest-to-god information .
Right now , it 's not looking so good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I'm beginning to question the value of completely free speech.
I've spent my entire life so far in support of it, and the free marketplace, but I'm finding more and more, that both are a fiction and always have been!The "free" marketplace isn't free, it's a highly unstable situation that's carefully protected by a government that's surprisingly willing to impose on the "freedome" of the marketplace.
Until the 1980s, government stepped in many times, repeatedly, over the years, to limit the power of the monopolies in the United States.
But after about 1981 or so, we simply stopped caring.
And the result has decimated our marketplace!
In becoming more "free", we've simply become more monopolistic, where Wal-Mart now delivers some 30\% to 50\% of the consumed goods in the USA.This was unheard of before then, but only because the gubbmint stepped in repeatedly to limit the power of (among others) A&amp;P, the mid-20th century equivalent of Wal-Mart.
As a percentage of population, Wal-Mart is now at least 5x as big as A&amp;P ever was at its height.
Yet Wal-Mart is just one of many vertical monopolies now rearing, to the deafening roar of untrained people who rally and cry for speech and marketplaces free from the controls of the government that was otherwise busy serving their own interests.
It's a sad, sad state of affairs.In a similar vein, I'm finding that "free speech" never existed.
For over a century, there were strict controls on news organizations and reporting agencies - strict policies on libel and a general expectation of truth.
This was easily enforced, because there were so few news agencies with the ability to reach a significant percentage of the population.
And the result was filtered news and information of generally high-quality.But the Internet has changed all that.
Even if strict news reporting standards were still in effect, the news organizations would have to compete with the deafening roar of blogs and other "almost news" sites (Slashdot being one of them!
) and so the standards would lose all their teeth anyway.What journalistic standards is my completely private post written from my armchair going to be held to?But the end result is that any whining idiot with an opinion that sounds nice gets lots of play, and real information gets lost in the din of noise and misinformation.
Without any expectation of accountability, idiots like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are free to spread their bile and intellectual filth to unwashed masses who haven't developed the means to filter them out, partly due to the falling standards and expectations from our public school system, which has gotten so bad that no schooling at all [unschooling.com] is often an improvement.Free speech is just noise without a bullshit filter.
Look in your spam box for 99.97\% "free speech".
If society is to save itself, it will need to learn the difference between speech and honest-to-god information.
Right now, it's not looking so good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631596</id>
	<title>Re:I'm beginning to doubt the value of free speech</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1262533320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Seriously, I'm beginning to question the value of completely free speech.</p> </div><p>Your statement there is as offensive as Google censoring.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously , I 'm beginning to question the value of completely free speech .
Your statement there is as offensive as Google censoring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously, I'm beginning to question the value of completely free speech.
Your statement there is as offensive as Google censoring.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631518</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical Standards</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1262532480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>by traditional Western ethical standards, censorship is EVIL.</p></div><p>By my standards, you're full of crap. More relevantly: tradition is <em>never</em> sufficient justification to do any thing any more than the simple ability to do it. Every tradition which cannot survive in the light of reason must be eliminated. It's fine and good to do something just to remind you of the importance of something; I don't presume to discard ritual. But any harmful ritual must be done away with.</p><p>With that in mind, does Google better help the people of India move forward from reactionary superstition by providing them legally-censored content, or by providing them nothing at all? They are not prohibited from discussing this censorship as people have been in some other situations, so I feel Google is still providing a net positive push toward freedom.</p><p>I <em>also</em> believe that it is important to recognize a people's right to self-governance. Who knows, maybe their Gods are historical figures, and it's the rest of us that are wrong? (heh heh)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>by traditional Western ethical standards , censorship is EVIL.By my standards , you 're full of crap .
More relevantly : tradition is never sufficient justification to do any thing any more than the simple ability to do it .
Every tradition which can not survive in the light of reason must be eliminated .
It 's fine and good to do something just to remind you of the importance of something ; I do n't presume to discard ritual .
But any harmful ritual must be done away with.With that in mind , does Google better help the people of India move forward from reactionary superstition by providing them legally-censored content , or by providing them nothing at all ?
They are not prohibited from discussing this censorship as people have been in some other situations , so I feel Google is still providing a net positive push toward freedom.I also believe that it is important to recognize a people 's right to self-governance .
Who knows , maybe their Gods are historical figures , and it 's the rest of us that are wrong ?
( heh heh )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>by traditional Western ethical standards, censorship is EVIL.By my standards, you're full of crap.
More relevantly: tradition is never sufficient justification to do any thing any more than the simple ability to do it.
Every tradition which cannot survive in the light of reason must be eliminated.
It's fine and good to do something just to remind you of the importance of something; I don't presume to discard ritual.
But any harmful ritual must be done away with.With that in mind, does Google better help the people of India move forward from reactionary superstition by providing them legally-censored content, or by providing them nothing at all?
They are not prohibited from discussing this censorship as people have been in some other situations, so I feel Google is still providing a net positive push toward freedom.I also believe that it is important to recognize a people's right to self-governance.
Who knows, maybe their Gods are historical figures, and it's the rest of us that are wrong?
(heh heh)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632936</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262545680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As much as we want every person in the world to be of the same color, follow the same god, have the same culture, follow and hold similar ideals, its never going to happen. We do expect immigrants to americanize when they land here don't we? I find nothing wrong with an american firm following local laws when harvesting a profit from the second most populous country in the world. I've been to India, Indians and hindus are way more tolerant of foreigners than most other people, even though they have been slaughtered by the millions by arab muslims and economically exploited by the various colonial powers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As much as we want every person in the world to be of the same color , follow the same god , have the same culture , follow and hold similar ideals , its never going to happen .
We do expect immigrants to americanize when they land here do n't we ?
I find nothing wrong with an american firm following local laws when harvesting a profit from the second most populous country in the world .
I 've been to India , Indians and hindus are way more tolerant of foreigners than most other people , even though they have been slaughtered by the millions by arab muslims and economically exploited by the various colonial powers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As much as we want every person in the world to be of the same color, follow the same god, have the same culture, follow and hold similar ideals, its never going to happen.
We do expect immigrants to americanize when they land here don't we?
I find nothing wrong with an american firm following local laws when harvesting a profit from the second most populous country in the world.
I've been to India, Indians and hindus are way more tolerant of foreigners than most other people, even though they have been slaughtered by the millions by arab muslims and economically exploited by the various colonial powers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630382</id>
	<title>Individuality and tact</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262511600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Individuality and tact need not be mutually exclusive. Often these problems occur when tact is <i>forgotten</i> while pursuing notionally laudable goals such as the promotion of free speech. No matter how much you (or I) disagree with the statement "Jews/Blacks/Gays Are Evil", we know that freedom of speech permits such statements to be made in public, yet people are wary of saying those things off the cuff. The difference is that in the Jew/Black/Gay case, a person saying that in the USA knows that US society does not approve, whereas an American in Indian society (however that's defined) often has no idea/a different idea of what passes for acceptable in India.</p><p>"Do as the Romans do" really is the point, but it is surprising how often even folk advice flies over people who do not care for discussions on ideas about society.</p><p>(Of course, what I said is complicated by the US idea of individualism. But that doesn't matter here.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Individuality and tact need not be mutually exclusive .
Often these problems occur when tact is forgotten while pursuing notionally laudable goals such as the promotion of free speech .
No matter how much you ( or I ) disagree with the statement " Jews/Blacks/Gays Are Evil " , we know that freedom of speech permits such statements to be made in public , yet people are wary of saying those things off the cuff .
The difference is that in the Jew/Black/Gay case , a person saying that in the USA knows that US society does not approve , whereas an American in Indian society ( however that 's defined ) often has no idea/a different idea of what passes for acceptable in India .
" Do as the Romans do " really is the point , but it is surprising how often even folk advice flies over people who do not care for discussions on ideas about society .
( Of course , what I said is complicated by the US idea of individualism .
But that does n't matter here .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Individuality and tact need not be mutually exclusive.
Often these problems occur when tact is forgotten while pursuing notionally laudable goals such as the promotion of free speech.
No matter how much you (or I) disagree with the statement "Jews/Blacks/Gays Are Evil", we know that freedom of speech permits such statements to be made in public, yet people are wary of saying those things off the cuff.
The difference is that in the Jew/Black/Gay case, a person saying that in the USA knows that US society does not approve, whereas an American in Indian society (however that's defined) often has no idea/a different idea of what passes for acceptable in India.
"Do as the Romans do" really is the point, but it is surprising how often even folk advice flies over people who do not care for discussions on ideas about society.
(Of course, what I said is complicated by the US idea of individualism.
But that doesn't matter here.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631018</id>
	<title>Wow. get a load of those polished words there.</title>
	<author>unity100</author>
	<datestamp>1262524380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>she says india 'values free speech', but they are 'weighing' the 'harm of free speech' against<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..... well the rest is not important.</p><p>hey, google spokeswoman. next time you say something like 'harm of free speech', dont continue the sentence. shut the fuck up. because when you say 'harm of free speech', it means you totally screwed up.</p><p>your shitty polished words made your company lose more pr than if anything wasnt said. next time, either shut the fuck up, or tell your company to make someone else but you speak about it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>she says india 'values free speech ' , but they are 'weighing ' the 'harm of free speech ' against ..... well the rest is not important.hey , google spokeswoman .
next time you say something like 'harm of free speech ' , dont continue the sentence .
shut the fuck up .
because when you say 'harm of free speech ' , it means you totally screwed up.your shitty polished words made your company lose more pr than if anything wasnt said .
next time , either shut the fuck up , or tell your company to make someone else but you speak about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>she says india 'values free speech', but they are 'weighing' the 'harm of free speech' against ..... well the rest is not important.hey, google spokeswoman.
next time you say something like 'harm of free speech', dont continue the sentence.
shut the fuck up.
because when you say 'harm of free speech', it means you totally screwed up.your shitty polished words made your company lose more pr than if anything wasnt said.
next time, either shut the fuck up, or tell your company to make someone else but you speak about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30648660</id>
	<title>Re:Now what?</title>
	<author>ananthap</author>
	<datestamp>1262610480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This Indian dude is very much alive and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....ing (kicking?)at 86 years. He is a retired politician from northern India who was the titular head of the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.

Once caught, he resigned to avoid further attention to his sponsors (the ruling Indian political party0.

He was caught cavorting in bed with 3 women. But he was just lying down (at that age what do you expect)? Being a touchy-feely type, it seems that he wanted his daily feel.

Earlier a paternity case was filed against him that he won ON TCHNICAL GROUNDS.

End</htmltext>
<tokenext>This Indian dude is very much alive and ....ing ( kicking ?
) at 86 years .
He is a retired politician from northern India who was the titular head of the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh .
Once caught , he resigned to avoid further attention to his sponsors ( the ruling Indian political party0 .
He was caught cavorting in bed with 3 women .
But he was just lying down ( at that age what do you expect ) ?
Being a touchy-feely type , it seems that he wanted his daily feel .
Earlier a paternity case was filed against him that he won ON TCHNICAL GROUNDS .
End</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This Indian dude is very much alive and ....ing (kicking?
)at 86 years.
He is a retired politician from northern India who was the titular head of the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh.
Once caught, he resigned to avoid further attention to his sponsors (the ruling Indian political party0.
He was caught cavorting in bed with 3 women.
But he was just lying down (at that age what do you expect)?
Being a touchy-feely type, it seems that he wanted his daily feel.
Earlier a paternity case was filed against him that he won ON TCHNICAL GROUNDS.
End</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633984</id>
	<title>Re:I'm beginning to doubt the value of free speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262511420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Free speech and free market are not the same thing. No wonder you're confused.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Free speech and free market are not the same thing .
No wonder you 're confused .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Free speech and free market are not the same thing.
No wonder you're confused.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630328</id>
	<title>Free speech in America? Ha!</title>
	<author>syousef</author>
	<datestamp>1262510340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Sounds like more of a culture problem than a Google problem there. I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots?</i></p><p>Walk into a biker bar and loudly and proudly proclaim that their favourite brand of motorcycle stinks. See how long you last. The only difference is there won't be a full scale riot because they'll make pretty short work of you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like more of a culture problem than a Google problem there .
I mean , is the west the only place where people can say " offensive " things without riots ? Walk into a biker bar and loudly and proudly proclaim that their favourite brand of motorcycle stinks .
See how long you last .
The only difference is there wo n't be a full scale riot because they 'll make pretty short work of you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like more of a culture problem than a Google problem there.
I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots?Walk into a biker bar and loudly and proudly proclaim that their favourite brand of motorcycle stinks.
See how long you last.
The only difference is there won't be a full scale riot because they'll make pretty short work of you.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632716</id>
	<title>If you really want to see ..</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262544060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Posts tracked with IP located from India, I Dont know SLASHDOt has EVER had a scheme of showing only posts with zer0, -1 or 1(ID) score .</p><p>WTF slashdot, Is this a Freedom oF Speech, writing?</p><p>But surely No matter Its earning Money !! and in your culture giving your wife for mere bucks to friend, for FUCK, is valid.</p><p>I am waiting to get -1<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>and should  be the last post on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./<br>your Wife will be  blessed with gay Kid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>Joy,cheers or WTF.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Posts tracked with IP located from India , I Dont know SLASHDOt has EVER had a scheme of showing only posts with zer0 , -1 or 1 ( ID ) score .WTF slashdot , Is this a Freedom oF Speech , writing ? But surely No matter Its earning Money ! !
and in your culture giving your wife for mere bucks to friend , for FUCK , is valid.I am waiting to get -1 ...and should be the last post on ./your Wife will be blessed with gay Kid ...Joy,cheers or WTF .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Posts tracked with IP located from India, I Dont know SLASHDOt has EVER had a scheme of showing only posts with zer0, -1 or 1(ID) score .WTF slashdot, Is this a Freedom oF Speech, writing?But surely No matter Its earning Money !!
and in your culture giving your wife for mere bucks to friend, for FUCK, is valid.I am waiting to get -1 ...and should  be the last post on ./your Wife will be  blessed with gay Kid ...Joy,cheers or WTF.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632270</id>
	<title>Cause Riots you say?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262540640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about get arrested on felony charges in Ireland?</p><p>Lord rama likes it in the ass with jesus and mohammed eating shit off his chest!</p><p>There, two birds with one stone!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about get arrested on felony charges in Ireland ? Lord rama likes it in the ass with jesus and mohammed eating shit off his chest ! There , two birds with one stone !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about get arrested on felony charges in Ireland?Lord rama likes it in the ass with jesus and mohammed eating shit off his chest!There, two birds with one stone!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630602</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical Standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262515680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because Google is so useful when it returns results that cannot be resolved inside the great firewall of China.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because Google is so useful when it returns results that can not be resolved inside the great firewall of China .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because Google is so useful when it returns results that cannot be resolved inside the great firewall of China.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631652</id>
	<title>Jesus must be silenced lest the people rise up</title>
	<author>scifiber\_phil</author>
	<datestamp>1262534100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'India does value free speech and political speech. But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.'

Governments have been using that sort of argument for thousands of years. All speech is just data, and our knowledge, wisdom, and moral sense are the filters we use to weigh that data. We don't need nor do we desire governments to filter the data for us, or only allow us access to a subset of data that they deem appropriate. Indeed, only having access to all the data allows us to see the big picture, and thus make wise decisions. The 'climategate' scandal is a good example. When some views are suppressed, and some data is 'tweaked', the whole model becomes suspect. The wise say, "Give us all the data. Let all voices be heard. Only then can we begin to approach the truth that we are seeking." The google spokesperson could have said "India is weighing the good of free speech against the harm of violence in their streets.", but they chose to phrase it as: 'the harm of free speech'. Think about that mindset the next time you need to trust any authority, whether it be government, google, or carbon-taxing zealots.</htmltext>
<tokenext>'India does value free speech and political speech .
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets .
' Governments have been using that sort of argument for thousands of years .
All speech is just data , and our knowledge , wisdom , and moral sense are the filters we use to weigh that data .
We do n't need nor do we desire governments to filter the data for us , or only allow us access to a subset of data that they deem appropriate .
Indeed , only having access to all the data allows us to see the big picture , and thus make wise decisions .
The 'climategate ' scandal is a good example .
When some views are suppressed , and some data is 'tweaked ' , the whole model becomes suspect .
The wise say , " Give us all the data .
Let all voices be heard .
Only then can we begin to approach the truth that we are seeking .
" The google spokesperson could have said " India is weighing the good of free speech against the harm of violence in their streets .
" , but they chose to phrase it as : 'the harm of free speech' .
Think about that mindset the next time you need to trust any authority , whether it be government , google , or carbon-taxing zealots .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'India does value free speech and political speech.
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.
'

Governments have been using that sort of argument for thousands of years.
All speech is just data, and our knowledge, wisdom, and moral sense are the filters we use to weigh that data.
We don't need nor do we desire governments to filter the data for us, or only allow us access to a subset of data that they deem appropriate.
Indeed, only having access to all the data allows us to see the big picture, and thus make wise decisions.
The 'climategate' scandal is a good example.
When some views are suppressed, and some data is 'tweaked', the whole model becomes suspect.
The wise say, "Give us all the data.
Let all voices be heard.
Only then can we begin to approach the truth that we are seeking.
" The google spokesperson could have said "India is weighing the good of free speech against the harm of violence in their streets.
", but they chose to phrase it as: 'the harm of free speech'.
Think about that mindset the next time you need to trust any authority, whether it be government, google, or carbon-taxing zealots.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30640680</id>
	<title>Re:Free?</title>
	<author>ultranova</author>
	<datestamp>1262620680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The big benefit of free trade isn't increased freedoms around the world, but the lessening of armed conflict. Nations which trade with each other tend to do better than isolationist nations, but they also become dependent on each other. Nation which depend on each other are much less likely to wage war on each other. Whether they both grant the same freedoms to their citizens is largely irrelevant.</p></div> </blockquote><p>I disagree with the last part. If two nations have free trade between themselves, and one has higher wages and better labour protection laws than the other, then the people in the first will actually be worse off with free trade than without it, since the companies will outsource the production to the second (exactly as has happened lately). The people in the second may be better off or they might actually be worse off too, if their government realizes that it can encourage foreign investment by keeping its citizens down.</p><p>In the long run, free trade might well benefit us all, but currently it's creating a rush to the bottom: we're standardizing on US copyright law, Chinese political freedoms, and Indian wages. All that's missing is African rule of law and EU's level of bureaucracy.</p><blockquote><div><p>Of course, generally speaking, increased wealth (average income) does tend to lead to increased education and an increase in freedom.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Median income is a better single-number wealth indicator, as it guarantees that at least half of the population is getting that mcuh.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The big benefit of free trade is n't increased freedoms around the world , but the lessening of armed conflict .
Nations which trade with each other tend to do better than isolationist nations , but they also become dependent on each other .
Nation which depend on each other are much less likely to wage war on each other .
Whether they both grant the same freedoms to their citizens is largely irrelevant .
I disagree with the last part .
If two nations have free trade between themselves , and one has higher wages and better labour protection laws than the other , then the people in the first will actually be worse off with free trade than without it , since the companies will outsource the production to the second ( exactly as has happened lately ) .
The people in the second may be better off or they might actually be worse off too , if their government realizes that it can encourage foreign investment by keeping its citizens down.In the long run , free trade might well benefit us all , but currently it 's creating a rush to the bottom : we 're standardizing on US copyright law , Chinese political freedoms , and Indian wages .
All that 's missing is African rule of law and EU 's level of bureaucracy.Of course , generally speaking , increased wealth ( average income ) does tend to lead to increased education and an increase in freedom .
Median income is a better single-number wealth indicator , as it guarantees that at least half of the population is getting that mcuh .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The big benefit of free trade isn't increased freedoms around the world, but the lessening of armed conflict.
Nations which trade with each other tend to do better than isolationist nations, but they also become dependent on each other.
Nation which depend on each other are much less likely to wage war on each other.
Whether they both grant the same freedoms to their citizens is largely irrelevant.
I disagree with the last part.
If two nations have free trade between themselves, and one has higher wages and better labour protection laws than the other, then the people in the first will actually be worse off with free trade than without it, since the companies will outsource the production to the second (exactly as has happened lately).
The people in the second may be better off or they might actually be worse off too, if their government realizes that it can encourage foreign investment by keeping its citizens down.In the long run, free trade might well benefit us all, but currently it's creating a rush to the bottom: we're standardizing on US copyright law, Chinese political freedoms, and Indian wages.
All that's missing is African rule of law and EU's level of bureaucracy.Of course, generally speaking, increased wealth (average income) does tend to lead to increased education and an increase in freedom.
Median income is a better single-number wealth indicator, as it guarantees that at least half of the population is getting that mcuh.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630554</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162</id>
	<title>Re:Now what?</title>
	<author>Runaway1956</author>
	<datestamp>1262550720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Google forcibly deleted and dissolved a group on Orkut"</p><p>Wow.  Really?  They just marched a batallion of Google soldiers in, with fixed bayonets, and FORCIBLY took the site over?</p><p>FFS - how about dropping all the drama bullshit, and just say that Google deleted a fucking page on their site.  Drama queens suck diseased donkey balls.  Or, diseased dog nuts, if donkey balls are in short supply.</p><p>I don't like censorship.  With censorship, I wouldn't be allowed to point out that the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy was a fucking moron, a thief, a murderer, and a fraud.  It could be that this deceased Indian dude was just like Senator Ted.  If so, the world has the right to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Google forcibly deleted and dissolved a group on Orkut " Wow .
Really ? They just marched a batallion of Google soldiers in , with fixed bayonets , and FORCIBLY took the site over ? FFS - how about dropping all the drama bullshit , and just say that Google deleted a fucking page on their site .
Drama queens suck diseased donkey balls .
Or , diseased dog nuts , if donkey balls are in short supply.I do n't like censorship .
With censorship , I would n't be allowed to point out that the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy was a fucking moron , a thief , a murderer , and a fraud .
It could be that this deceased Indian dude was just like Senator Ted .
If so , the world has the right to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Google forcibly deleted and dissolved a group on Orkut"Wow.
Really?  They just marched a batallion of Google soldiers in, with fixed bayonets, and FORCIBLY took the site over?FFS - how about dropping all the drama bullshit, and just say that Google deleted a fucking page on their site.
Drama queens suck diseased donkey balls.
Or, diseased dog nuts, if donkey balls are in short supply.I don't like censorship.
With censorship, I wouldn't be allowed to point out that the deceased Senator Ted Kennedy was a fucking moron, a thief, a murderer, and a fraud.
It could be that this deceased Indian dude was just like Senator Ted.
If so, the world has the right to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630056</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262549280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sounds like more of a culture problem than a Google problem there. I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots? And even then Islamic idiots try to kill them (look at the Danish cartoonist issue) when free speech is protected by law.</p></div><p>What are you talking about?</p><p>If I go into a large crowd somewhere in the US and start shouting that you guys deserved 9/11 for your arrogance, not only am I likely to start a riot - I'm also likely to get beaten to death or shot.</p><p>Methinks your perception is a bit off. If you're going to go insinuating that other cultures or countries are inferior, you should at least examine similar situations. And surprise surprise - everyone behaves similarly when the situations have the same meaning to individual people.</p><p>Countdown to troll mod... 5...4...3...2...1</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like more of a culture problem than a Google problem there .
I mean , is the west the only place where people can say " offensive " things without riots ?
And even then Islamic idiots try to kill them ( look at the Danish cartoonist issue ) when free speech is protected by law.What are you talking about ? If I go into a large crowd somewhere in the US and start shouting that you guys deserved 9/11 for your arrogance , not only am I likely to start a riot - I 'm also likely to get beaten to death or shot.Methinks your perception is a bit off .
If you 're going to go insinuating that other cultures or countries are inferior , you should at least examine similar situations .
And surprise surprise - everyone behaves similarly when the situations have the same meaning to individual people.Countdown to troll mod... 5...4...3...2...1</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like more of a culture problem than a Google problem there.
I mean, is the west the only place where people can say "offensive" things without riots?
And even then Islamic idiots try to kill them (look at the Danish cartoonist issue) when free speech is protected by law.What are you talking about?If I go into a large crowd somewhere in the US and start shouting that you guys deserved 9/11 for your arrogance, not only am I likely to start a riot - I'm also likely to get beaten to death or shot.Methinks your perception is a bit off.
If you're going to go insinuating that other cultures or countries are inferior, you should at least examine similar situations.
And surprise surprise - everyone behaves similarly when the situations have the same meaning to individual people.Countdown to troll mod... 5...4...3...2...1
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630152</id>
	<title>So is there any country in the world...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262550660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...where information passes freely from one person to another without the constant threat of jackboots and lawyers?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...where information passes freely from one person to another without the constant threat of jackboots and lawyers ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...where information passes freely from one person to another without the constant threat of jackboots and lawyers?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632468</id>
	<title>It's all about the numbers</title>
	<author>thethibs</author>
	<datestamp>1262542620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's all about the numbers. India's population is so huge that the ends of the intelligence curve are significant.</p><p>At one end, India has more super-programmers than the US has programmers.</p><p>At the other end, India has more homicidal morons than the US has morons.</p><p>Say something someone takes offense to and in the US you'll get picketted. In India someone will burn your house down.</p><p>You can't much blame the Indian government for worrying.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's all about the numbers .
India 's population is so huge that the ends of the intelligence curve are significant.At one end , India has more super-programmers than the US has programmers.At the other end , India has more homicidal morons than the US has morons.Say something someone takes offense to and in the US you 'll get picketted .
In India someone will burn your house down.You ca n't much blame the Indian government for worrying .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's all about the numbers.
India's population is so huge that the ends of the intelligence curve are significant.At one end, India has more super-programmers than the US has programmers.At the other end, India has more homicidal morons than the US has morons.Say something someone takes offense to and in the US you'll get picketted.
In India someone will burn your house down.You can't much blame the Indian government for worrying.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30634136</id>
	<title>Re:I'm beginning to doubt the value of free speech</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262512500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If society is to save itself from what, exactly?  I don't have any problem noticing that spam is not information, nor do I find it particularly difficult to decide for myself whether I want to shop at Wal-Mart or anywhere else.  I suppose you would prefer that google make those decisions for you?  Or maybe whomever happens to be the latest commander in chief?  Ooh, maybe we could defer to the Scientologists from now on?</p><p>Give me a break.  Freedom is rare enough in the world and throughout history, the last thing we need is more people who are too stupid to realize how lucky we are running around trying to ruin it for everyone else because they are afraid of an oversized grocery store and a few stupid scam artists in Nigeria.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If society is to save itself from what , exactly ?
I do n't have any problem noticing that spam is not information , nor do I find it particularly difficult to decide for myself whether I want to shop at Wal-Mart or anywhere else .
I suppose you would prefer that google make those decisions for you ?
Or maybe whomever happens to be the latest commander in chief ?
Ooh , maybe we could defer to the Scientologists from now on ? Give me a break .
Freedom is rare enough in the world and throughout history , the last thing we need is more people who are too stupid to realize how lucky we are running around trying to ruin it for everyone else because they are afraid of an oversized grocery store and a few stupid scam artists in Nigeria .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If society is to save itself from what, exactly?
I don't have any problem noticing that spam is not information, nor do I find it particularly difficult to decide for myself whether I want to shop at Wal-Mart or anywhere else.
I suppose you would prefer that google make those decisions for you?
Or maybe whomever happens to be the latest commander in chief?
Ooh, maybe we could defer to the Scientologists from now on?Give me a break.
Freedom is rare enough in the world and throughout history, the last thing we need is more people who are too stupid to realize how lucky we are running around trying to ruin it for everyone else because they are afraid of an oversized grocery store and a few stupid scam artists in Nigeria.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630822</id>
	<title>Re:I'm beginning to doubt the value of free speech</title>
	<author>sandysnowbeard</author>
	<datestamp>1262519700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Perhaps the role of the government is to regulate the free market when it's in the interest of citizens and the free market is unable to regulate itself. Obviously the current U.S. government dropped the ball on that one, likely starting with deregulation in the Reagan era.
<br> <br>
What would make Google's censoring worse would be if Indians did not know Google was censoring. Do they know? Can they read slashdot?
<br> <br>
And, signal-to-noise-ratio is a problem, as is any other denial-of-service type attack on our ability to express our thoughts. People shouldn't feel threatened for speaking their minds, nor should they be placed in a muzzle and unable to speak - literally or allegorically.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps the role of the government is to regulate the free market when it 's in the interest of citizens and the free market is unable to regulate itself .
Obviously the current U.S. government dropped the ball on that one , likely starting with deregulation in the Reagan era .
What would make Google 's censoring worse would be if Indians did not know Google was censoring .
Do they know ?
Can they read slashdot ?
And , signal-to-noise-ratio is a problem , as is any other denial-of-service type attack on our ability to express our thoughts .
People should n't feel threatened for speaking their minds , nor should they be placed in a muzzle and unable to speak - literally or allegorically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps the role of the government is to regulate the free market when it's in the interest of citizens and the free market is unable to regulate itself.
Obviously the current U.S. government dropped the ball on that one, likely starting with deregulation in the Reagan era.
What would make Google's censoring worse would be if Indians did not know Google was censoring.
Do they know?
Can they read slashdot?
And, signal-to-noise-ratio is a problem, as is any other denial-of-service type attack on our ability to express our thoughts.
People shouldn't feel threatened for speaking their minds, nor should they be placed in a muzzle and unable to speak - literally or allegorically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630708</id>
	<title>Re:Ethical Standards</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262517660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "do no evil" stuff has been bulls**t from the beginning. A company cannot have moral choices as it has only one choice: to make money for the shareholders or owner.<br>Yes, they can choose to make some good, donate, but the moment the company is threatened (be it failure or competition) it will do the only thing it can to: money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " do no evil " stuff has been bulls * * t from the beginning .
A company can not have moral choices as it has only one choice : to make money for the shareholders or owner.Yes , they can choose to make some good , donate , but the moment the company is threatened ( be it failure or competition ) it will do the only thing it can to : money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "do no evil" stuff has been bulls**t from the beginning.
A company cannot have moral choices as it has only one choice: to make money for the shareholders or owner.Yes, they can choose to make some good, donate, but the moment the company is threatened (be it failure or competition) it will do the only thing it can to: money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629876</id>
	<title>Do no evil.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262461080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except when emerging markets subtly demand it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except when emerging markets subtly demand it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except when emerging markets subtly demand it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633424</id>
	<title>You always get it in the BUT</title>
	<author>popsicle67</author>
	<datestamp>1262548980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>'India does value free speech and political speech. But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.'"
In other words India is really concerned about how the outside world, which supplies an untold percentage of it's Gross National Product,  perceives the actions of it's government but in truth will do what it wants to do anyway. Whenever you here the word "BUT" you can assume that everything you just heard before "BUT" is bullshit and everything you hear after is what the speaker truly believes</htmltext>
<tokenext>'India does value free speech and political speech .
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets .
' " In other words India is really concerned about how the outside world , which supplies an untold percentage of it 's Gross National Product , perceives the actions of it 's government but in truth will do what it wants to do anyway .
Whenever you here the word " BUT " you can assume that everything you just heard before " BUT " is bullshit and everything you hear after is what the speaker truly believes</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'India does value free speech and political speech.
But they are weighing the harm of free speech against violence in their streets.
'"
In other words India is really concerned about how the outside world, which supplies an untold percentage of it's Gross National Product,  perceives the actions of it's government but in truth will do what it wants to do anyway.
Whenever you here the word "BUT" you can assume that everything you just heard before "BUT" is bullshit and everything you hear after is what the speaker truly believes</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629852</id>
	<title>Law != political correctness</title>
	<author>drdrgivemethenews</author>
	<datestamp>1262460840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seems to me that Google and others are correct in following local law. This is not the same, however, as following the dictates of local advocates of political correctness. Doing that is simply a recipe for increasing the level of local corruption.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seems to me that Google and others are correct in following local law .
This is not the same , however , as following the dictates of local advocates of political correctness .
Doing that is simply a recipe for increasing the level of local corruption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seems to me that Google and others are correct in following local law.
This is not the same, however, as following the dictates of local advocates of political correctness.
Doing that is simply a recipe for increasing the level of local corruption.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633482</id>
	<title>Re:Sounds like a culture problem to me...</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1262549700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>If I go into a large crowd somewhere in the US and start shouting that you guys deserved 9/11 for your arrogance, not only am I likely to start a riot - I'm also likely to get beaten to death or shot.</em></p><p>You can think that, if you like.  But your comic-book caricature version of the U.S. is just that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If I go into a large crowd somewhere in the US and start shouting that you guys deserved 9/11 for your arrogance , not only am I likely to start a riot - I 'm also likely to get beaten to death or shot.You can think that , if you like .
But your comic-book caricature version of the U.S. is just that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I go into a large crowd somewhere in the US and start shouting that you guys deserved 9/11 for your arrogance, not only am I likely to start a riot - I'm also likely to get beaten to death or shot.You can think that, if you like.
But your comic-book caricature version of the U.S. is just that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630056</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630602
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633274
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631518
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30637380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631646
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630202
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630526
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630422
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630024
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30634874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633984
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630134
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30640680
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630244
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30648660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632428
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629996
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30634136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630350
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629978
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30634012
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629876
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630864
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630230
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631058
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630822
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630388
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631588
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30637164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630880
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30652052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630708
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630502
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631232
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30648596
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631200
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630258
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30653556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630530
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631786
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632554
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_03_0123216_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630056
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631868
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630534
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30637164
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630152
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630358
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630554
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30640680
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629978
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631588
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630388
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630704
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30648596
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630032
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633984
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632052
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631596
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630822
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630422
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630244
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630254
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30634136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30652052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630056
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630136
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630230
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631058
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630024
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630530
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630328
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630090
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630202
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630526
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630162
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30648660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30634012
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630482
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30633274
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631232
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630258
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30653556
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631666
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630522
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630944
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630026
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30632428
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631518
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30631646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30634874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30637380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630708
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630602
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30630350
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629926
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_03_0123216.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_03_0123216.30629896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
