<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
><channel><title>Yostivanich &#187; freedomofspeech</title> <atom:link href="http://www.yostivanich.com/tag/freedomofspeech/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.yostivanich.com</link> <description>Surfing the web and hopefully learning something new every day</description> <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 05:53:28 +0000</lastBuildDate> <language>en</language> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator> <atom:link rel='hub' href='http://www.yostivanich.com/?pushpress=hub'/> <item><title>Friendly Atheist &#8211; An Iowa College’s Response to Blasphemy Day</title><link>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/07/24/friendly-atheist-an-iowa-college%e2%80%99s-response-to-blasphemy-day/</link> <comments>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/07/24/friendly-atheist-an-iowa-college%e2%80%99s-response-to-blasphemy-day/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 19:53:25 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Justin Yost</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Philosophy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Quick Posts]]></category> <category><![CDATA[blasphemy]]></category> <category><![CDATA[college]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Communication]]></category> <category><![CDATA[debate]]></category> <category><![CDATA[freedomofexpression]]></category> <category><![CDATA[freedomofspeech]]></category> <category><![CDATA[iowa]]></category> <category><![CDATA[religion]]></category> <category><![CDATA[university]]></category><guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=1357</guid> <description><![CDATA[Freedom of speech is important for people to feel free to critique any idea even one as personal as religion.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>This is why Blasphemy Day is so important and why I’m now such a strong supporter of it.</p><p>It’s not about mocking religion or calling a believer names.</p><p>It’s about the freedom of speech and the idea that religion (along with other strongly-held beliefs) should be open to criticism.</p><p>No one should be able to silence you because they don’t like what you say.</p></blockquote><p>via <a
href='http://friendlyatheist.com/2010/07/24/an-iowa-colleges-response-to-blasphemy-day/' title="Friendly Atheist &ndash; An Iowa College’s Response to Blasphemy Day">Friendly Atheist &ndash; An Iowa College’s Response to Blasphemy Day</a>. Couldn&#8217;t agree more.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/07/24/friendly-atheist-an-iowa-college%e2%80%99s-response-to-blasphemy-day/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Anti-Piracy Group Says: &#8216;Child Porn Is Great&#8217; Since It Gets Politicians To Block File Sharing Sites &#8211; Techdirt</title><link>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/04/28/anti-piracy-group-says-child-porn-is-great-since-it-gets-politicians-to-block-file-sharing-sites-techdirt/</link> <comments>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/04/28/anti-piracy-group-says-child-porn-is-great-since-it-gets-politicians-to-block-file-sharing-sites-techdirt/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:27:39 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Justin Yost</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Communication]]></category> <category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category> <category><![CDATA[filters]]></category> <category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category> <category><![CDATA[freedomofspeech]]></category> <category><![CDATA[internet]]></category> <category><![CDATA[legal]]></category> <category><![CDATA[porn]]></category><guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=1307</guid> <description><![CDATA[Copyright groups apparently really like child porn because it's easy to get a politician behind blocking it.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Of course, those filters don&apos;t actually work, and using them to force entire sites to be blocked, despite them having a relatively tiny proportion of such content isn&apos;t just dishonest and underhanded, but dangerous. We&apos;re all in favor of trying to stop child porn, but you do that by focusing on the source, not by putting up filters willy-nilly in a misguided attempt to get politicians to also protect your business model.</p></blockquote><p>via <a
href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100427/1437179198.shtml">Anti-Piracy Group Says: &#8216;Child Porn Is Great&#8217; Since It Gets Politicians To Block File Sharing Sites &ndash; Techdirt</a>. How much a slime ball do you have to be to use child porn to keep your obsolete business model profitable?</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/04/28/anti-piracy-group-says-child-porn-is-great-since-it-gets-politicians-to-block-file-sharing-sites-techdirt/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Threats Don&#8217;t Justify Speaker Ban &#8211; Casper Star-Tribune</title><link>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/04/28/threats-dont-justify-speaker-ban-casper-star-tribune/</link> <comments>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/04/28/threats-dont-justify-speaker-ban-casper-star-tribune/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Wed, 28 Apr 2010 06:05:13 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Justin Yost</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[billayers]]></category> <category><![CDATA[college]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Communication]]></category> <category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category> <category><![CDATA[freedomofspeech]]></category> <category><![CDATA[wyoming]]></category><guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=1306</guid> <description><![CDATA[A threat is a viable reason to prevent someone from speaking on a public platform.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Threats of violence alone do not justify preventing someone from speaking on campus, U.S. District Judge William Downes told University of Wyoming President Tom Buchanan this afternoon.</p></blockquote><p>via <a
href="http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_dc17452c-518b-11df-aaef-001cc4c002e0.html">Threats don&#8217;t justify speaker ban &ndash; Casper Star-Tribune</a>. Good move, threats and violence shouldn&#8217;t limit someone&#8217;s right to speak, as long as the person speaking is aware of the risks and accepts them.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/04/28/threats-dont-justify-speaker-ban-casper-star-tribune/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>There is an inverse relationship between level of anonymity and quality of conversation &#8211; 37signals</title><link>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/03/11/there-is-an-inverse-relationship-between-level-of-anonymity-and-quality-of-conversation-37signals/</link> <comments>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/03/11/there-is-an-inverse-relationship-between-level-of-anonymity-and-quality-of-conversation-37signals/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:16:52 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Justin Yost</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Communication]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category> <category><![CDATA[converstation]]></category> <category><![CDATA[freedom]]></category> <category><![CDATA[freedomofspeech]]></category> <category><![CDATA[internet]]></category> <category><![CDATA[privacy]]></category><guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=1222</guid> <description><![CDATA[37signals finds value in disallowing anonymity for their conversational sites.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>And wow, what a difference it makes. Trading anonymity for accountability has led to radically improved conversations.</p></blockquote><p>via <a
href="http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2205-there-is-an-inverse-relationship-between-level-of-anonymity-and-quality-of-conversation" title="There is an inverse relationship between level of anonymity and quality of conversation - (37signals)">There is an inverse relationship between level of anonymity and quality of conversation &#8211; (37signals)</a>. 37signals finds value in disallowing anonymity for their conversational sites.</p></p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/03/11/there-is-an-inverse-relationship-between-level-of-anonymity-and-quality-of-conversation-37signals/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Be Careful What Your Bumper Sticker Says &#8211; Wired.com</title><link>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/02/02/be-careful-what-your-bumper-sticker-says-wired-com/</link> <comments>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/02/02/be-careful-what-your-bumper-sticker-says-wired-com/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 06:45:49 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Justin Yost</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[freedomofspeech]]></category> <category><![CDATA[georgewbush]]></category> <category><![CDATA[lawsuit]]></category> <category><![CDATA[usa]]></category><guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=1101</guid> <description><![CDATA[Legal decision passed down, stating that the government has the legal ability to eject people from private property on the basis of their individual viewpoint.]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>“Plaintiffs simply have not identified any First Amendment doctrine that prohibits the government from excluding them from an official speech on private property on the basis of their viewpoint,” Judge Paul J. Kelly wrote for the majority Wednesday.</p></blockquote><p>via <a
href="http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/bumper-sticker-speech/">Be Careful What Your Bumper Sticker Says | Threat Level | Wired.com</a>. Ridiculous, the ability for the government to silence or dismiss voices that they or parts of the government wish to not hear is not a valid reason to eject someone from a Presidential speech. The property holder surely has a reasonable case here of being able to eject people from their property they disagree with, but not the government.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.yostivanich.com/2010/02/02/be-careful-what-your-bumper-sticker-says-wired-com/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> <item><title>Freedom of Speech Means Freedom to Say Anything</title><link>http://www.yostivanich.com/2008/07/26/freedom-of-speech-means-freedom-to-say-anything/</link> <comments>http://www.yostivanich.com/2008/07/26/freedom-of-speech-means-freedom-to-say-anything/#comments</comments> <pubDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:14:31 +0000</pubDate> <dc:creator>Justin Yost</dc:creator> <category><![CDATA[General News]]></category> <category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category> <category><![CDATA[freedomofspeech]]></category> <category><![CDATA[internet]]></category> <category><![CDATA[religion]]></category><guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.yostivanich.com/?p=216</guid> <description><![CDATA[Freedom of speech, means the freedom to say anything irregardless of it being stupid or mean. Now granted you do have to have reasonable limits of freedom of speech in order for society to operate, the standard screaming fire in a crowded building clause. But freedom of speech means just that, you can&#8217;t operate in [...]]]></description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Freedom of speech, means the freedom to say anything irregardless of it being stupid or mean. Now granted you do have to have reasonable limits of freedom of speech in order for society to operate, the standard screaming fire in a crowded building clause. But freedom of speech means just that, you can&#8217;t operate in society without people sometimes saying things that are just plain stupid, mean or wrong. It&#8217;s the nature of being human that some people are just plain stupid or mean. This gets multiplied via the <a
title="Penny Arcade Comic: Green Blackboards" href="http://penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/03/19/">Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory</a> in an online environment.</p><p>That doesn&#8217;t mean that you can&#8217;t <a
title="OpposingViews.com" href="http://www.opposingviews.com/">create an environment whereby experts can debate topics</a>. What it means is that those debates are not going to be decided by pundits or other experts or the intellectuals of the world, but average citizens who will discuss a range of issues without any formal training in the area or any real understanding of the issues.</p><p>Just this week I had two people ask if atheism (No religious preference <a
title="Wikipedia: Religion in the US" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#No_Religion">is acutally the fastest growing answer to what religion you are</a> and <a
title="Wikipedia: Irreligion in the US" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion_in_the_United_States">one if four people aged 188 to 22 consider themselves atheist</a>) meant that the person worshiped the devil. Ummm, <a
title="Wikipedia: Atheism" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism">no</a>. These were both college students and fairly intelligent. They just didn&#8217;t know. That&#8217;s a problem, but does that mean those students shouldn&#8217;t be allowed to comment on religion in America. I would argue it may make their opinion not as valuable but it doesn&#8217;t mean that they shouldn&#8217;t have a voice.</p><p>One of the students in particular once understanding what atheism was able to express reasons beyond a standard &#8220;The Bible says so&#8221; or &#8220;Because I feel God&#8221; response to why atheism wouldn&#8217;t fit for her.</p><p>So no <a
title="Techcrunch.com: Video of Scoble telling comment trolls to go back to digg" href="http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/07/23/video-scoble-tells-the-comment-trolls-to-go-back-to-digg/">Robert Scoble</a> I don&#8217;t think the comment trolls should be deleted. Are they stupid, absolutely, are they wrong, almost certainly yes, should their voice be deleted, never.</p><p>That isn&#8217;t to say that he can do whatever he wants to on his blog and delete who he wishes. That also isn&#8217;t to say that I don&#8217;t desire meaningful and intelligent conversation. There is however a problem when to have a meaningful conversation you have to lock everyone out who you perceive has nothing to add to the conversation.</p><p>I don&#8217;t want that and I won&#8217;t do that.</p> ]]></content:encoded> <wfw:commentRss>http://www.yostivanich.com/2008/07/26/freedom-of-speech-means-freedom-to-say-anything/feed/</wfw:commentRss> <slash:comments>0</slash:comments> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (enhanced) (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 10/21 queries in 0.012 seconds using disk

Served from: www.yostivanich.com @ 2010-07-31 16:25:25 -->