Quote:
Originally Posted by gideongallery
30. No one has the right to take away any of the rights in this declaration
the 30th rule says you have no right to take away any of the rights
Again i ask you the question before
how exactly are you going to respond to my post if your internet is cut off
your arguing for a clear form of censorship
what if the religious right said you can only sell porn in this little block in one spot in the city
no selling anything online at all
by your definition that not violating your free speech rights at all since your still have the ability to express your self in that very limited way.
guess what that would violate 30th rule.
|
I never said take away their right to freedom of speech. Here's a news flash. People had freedom of speech before the internet existed. Having the freedom of speech and having access to exercise it on a grand scale are two different things. A person with no internet access can still exercise their freedom of speech, they just have to do it in a different way.
I am simply saying if you commit a crime using the internet it is not unfair to then take away their access.
If I had not internet, I would not be in this thread to begin with, but being able to respond to you is not a basic human right.
I asked and you ignored so I will ask again. If a person gets a fair trial, has access to a legal defense and is convicted of copyright violation multiple times do you still think they should have access to it?