Loading...

User blogs

Tag search results for: "law"
Guess who
From the point of view of a given individual (E.g, me), punishment imposed upon them can't be correctly accepted as justified or seen as a necessary obligation unless it fixes a recognized wrongdoing in a meaningful way. A person's assessment of their own actions can be one of satisfaction, regret, forgiveness, or indifference, none of which properly entail an emotional need to be punished.

Obviously those actions which we are satisfied with, we (note that I mean "we" as "us individuals," not in a collective sense) don't feel the need to be punished for because punishment ought only to apply to actions which are wrong or disagreeable. In fact, this is true by definition, only the interpretations of right/agreeable acts and wrong/disagreeable acts differ. The way other people interpret our actions should be of no concern, as their interpretations are either in agreement (in which case nothing changes) or incompatible (in which case they are our opposition and deserve no ideological sympathy).

Those we regret, we not only don't (need to) think we must be punished for, but can rightfully say nobody should be punished for. Because they are in a state of personal distress caused by the fact that we no longer regard a recent wrongdoing as right, to punish a person who regrets their actions is to essentially punish a different person, one who no longer agrees with the rationale or recognizes the lack of rationale for a past action. That is, a vile person turned innocent by their sudden change of heart. It should be said this would be a terrible practical policy, as it's difficult to tell when people truly regret things as opposed to simply feigning it to gain sympathy, without intimate familiarity with them and their behavior.

If punishment forced upon those who regret their actions is unjustified, then the same is true for probably self evident reasons of those who forgive their actions. Such people have likely already experienced regret and have moved on, accepting that their past actions were poor ones, and separating them from their current identities. Thus, any punishment laid upon them is an attack on a past identity rather than who they currently are, in a way even more certain than with those who merely regret things they've done.

As for indifference, well, it goes without saying you can hardly believe you must suffer for an action you couldn't fucking care less about.

As far as my viewpoint is concerned, punishments which don't involve compensation for the victims of my recognized follies are just useless causes of my suffering, used in an attempt to control my behavior or make an example of me in a way that is agreeable to external and popular expectations. The threat of legal and social penalties is not for me, who is not a self-hating slave of anyone who arbitrarily claims moral or legal authority, but for you, provided that you may possibly accept or be indifferent towards an action which I might deem to be distasteful, perhaps (conveniently) along with the rest of society. For this reason my aim here isn't to suggest you *should* disregard non-compensative punishments in general wherever possible, just that it would be *rational* if you did.
Anna


So more bullshit from Facebook. The latest news from the official Church of Satan page made me lolololololol. Some gallery owner was temporarily suspended from Facebook for posting William Mortensen art, including the pictures of the nudes, which the Facebook team considered indecent and diligently removed them from the guy’s page. There would be nothing extraordinary in it as the Facebook moderation policy is rather shitty if it wasn’t for the guy’s reaction.


The incident has been covered on Disinfo, Lexicon Magazine, Church of Satan News Page and the official Facebook pages. Surely, having your stuff removed from Facebook and being banned for a week is such an important event in your life that one at least should dedicate an article and an interview to that. So here there comes the freaking comedy:


Satan, Totalitarianism in America, and how an Art Gallery got Banned from Facebook.


The article begins with stating the relevant Facebook Terms of Service:


“We remove photographs of people displaying genitals or focusing in on fully exposed buttocks. We also restrict some images of female breasts if they include the nipple…


Lol, do the table and piano legs have to be covered too? Moving on…


…but we always allow photos of women actively engaged in breastfeeding or showing breasts with post-mastectomy scarring. We also allow photographs of paintings, sculptures, and other art that depicts nude figures.”


It seems Facebook team of dumbasses doesn’t know what qualifies as art. It’s not the first time the gallerist is banned from Facebook and his Mortensen pictures removed. I only wonder why he keeps posting that stuff over and over again knowing that it will be removed. However, it’s more interesting what he goes on to say in the interview:


It’s completely totalitarian in my view.  How crazy that a corporation sets the moral standard and acts as judge and jury and executioner, this is not in the interest of it’s users.  This is the part that really bothers me, the implications of  handing over what is in it’s spirit and essence a right  protected and guaranteed as constitutional Amendment to Facebook via a user agreement…


He’s referring to the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Which reads:


In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


I laughed my ass off. Of course, every Facebook denizen has a right to a public and fairly objective trial before being banned. I only wonder who should serve as the jury? Moderators? Facebook denizens? Who should be the judge? Zuckerberg himself?


So, what i am annoyed with, and question highly is where does Facebook get it’s sense of self entitlement, to the extent that it can conduct it’s operations in contradiction to a constitutional amendment?  Does it think it’s user base is SO DEPENDED UPON IT THAT IT WILL GIVE UP CONSTITUTION RIGHTS TO STAY WITHIN THE SOCIAL NETWORK?


So… Banned from Facebook? Here is a simple solution to your problem, people:


Sue the motherfuckers!


They have no right to restrict your freedom of speech, which is guaranteed by the Constitution. Posting the pictures of bare buttocks wherever and whenever you want is your basic human right, which you should defend till you drop dead. If Facebook doesn’t want to give you a fair trial, go to the court of law, hire a lawyer no matter the price and fight for your freedom. Don’t give up cuz the State is on your side, taking care to enhance your civil liberties especially now that the Islamic terrorist bastards are threatening our beloved democracy.


Anna Jan 21 '16 · Rate: 1 · Comments: 1 · Tags: art, facebook, humor, law, satanism, censorship, constitution
Anna

Un peuple n’a qu’un ennemi dangereux, c’est son gouvernement.



Now for the LOOOOOOOOLZ the latest news from the O9A Cabaret:


The Law and The Police


I have some forty years experience of interaction with the police, from ordinary constables and detectives, to custody sergeants, to officers from specialist branches such as SO12, SO13, and crime squads. During that time, I have known far more good police officers than bad – corrupt – ones. Furthermore, I realized that most of those I came into contact with were good individuals, motivated by the best of intentions, who were trying to do their best, often under difficult circumstances, and often to help victims of dishonourable deeds, catch those responsible for such deeds, and/or prevent such deeds…


So the cops are no longer the guardians of the oppressive Magian System or the prime example of the Homo Hubris or whatever. Now, they are honorable individuals motivated by an instinct for honor and fairness, not by the cash they get, no, just no. A job of a policeman is like any other job. There is nothing honorable or dishonorable about it. You do what you are paid for.


In truth they, those officers, as one of them once said to me, were guided by what ‘was laid down’ and did not presume to or tried hard not to overstep their authority; guided as they were by the law, that accumulated received wisdom of what was and is good in society…


Yeah the law reflects the accumulated wisdom of what is good in a society, rather then the arbitrary whims of this or that government, riiiight. And sure, the police must act according to the rules, no matter how ridiculous.


…a law which (at least in Britain and so far as I know) saught to embody a respect for what was fair and which concept of fairness was and always has been (again, at least in Britain and so far as I know) untainted, uncorrupted, by any political ideology.


LMAO! This really made my day. The law has nothing to do with the politics. No fucking way! It’s not the politicians that make the law, no way.


Now I know, I understand, I appreciate, that for that reason – of so being mindful of the limits of their authority, of being guided by what had been laid down over decades – those people, those police officers, were far better individuals than the arrogant, the hubriatic, extremist I was…


Don’t worry. Cameron has a way to deal with the likes of you, soon… Which brings us back to:



Extremists – The Modern Boogeymen.


David Cameron has just announced his new counter-terrorism bill, which is directed against the so-called non-violent extremists; people who don’t even incite violence but simply have and express radical views or, to put it bluntly, the views that are not politically correct. Anyone who expresses views that the government views as extreme will have to apply for permission to post in newspapers or online. Those judged as extremists will have to submit their material to the police for approval before they can publish it. The groups and organizations seeking to undermine democracy will be banned. The bill targets mainly Islamic groups but it can also have a negative impact on National Socialists and any other group inconvenient to the government.


The new law will also ban the radicals from giving speeches and lectures at the universities. There are plans to draw the list of speakers banned from the universities. If such a list is created, the universities will have to obey and refuse entry to the unwelcome visitors. The point is to protect young people from being drawn to radicalism.


The criterion for inclusion in the list would be the holding and promoting of non-violent extremist views (violent extremism being already banned). So, quite naturally, my fellow dons and I have been asking ourselves what constitutes an ‘extremist’ view. After all, one man’s extremist is another man’s purveyor of common sense. And, in any case, ‘freedom of speech within the law’ means nothing if it does not encompass the freedom to articulate very unpopular views and if it does not uphold, unequivocally, the right to give offence.


If ‘non-violent extremists’ can’t express their views at universities, where can they?


Prince Charles is also worried about radicalization of young people. In his opinion, the crazy stuff on the internet is definitely to blame:


Young people in Britain are being radicalised at an “alarming” rate, the Prince of Wales has said… “This is one of the greatest worries, I think, and the extent to which this is happening is the alarming part, and particularly in a country like ours where you know the values we hold dear,” he said… “The frightening part is that people can be so radicalised either by contact with somebody else or via the internet, and the extraordinary amount of crazy stuff which is on the internet…”


This is just Great Britain but everywhere terrorism is used as a convenient scarecrow to convince gullible masses to give up more and more of their constitutional “rights” in the name of security. Hate speech is another scarecrow used to limit free speech in the name of democracy and tolerance.


Hmm… perhaps, this is the reason behind the latest O9A comedy/comedies; moron Camoron’s antics. But don’t be fooled, ladies and gentlemen, appearances are misleading. The rumor has it that one of Cameron’s trusted advisors is an O9A spy. The proposed referendum on British membership of the EU is actually his idea. The aim is to let the damn European Union fall apart and speed up the coming of the Empire of Vindex. The ooky spooky O9A tribes in Britain also plan to kidnap the Royal Baby and demand a huge ransom that will totally ruin the government budget.

Anna Jun 15 '15 · Rate: 1 · Comments: 1 · Tags: law, o9a, democracy, police, britain, politics
Certain features and pages can only be viewed by registered users.

Join Now

Like and Share

Donate - PayPal

This site is largely funded by donations. You can show your support by donating. Thanks. Every dollar helps. You need not a PayPal to donate either just a debit or credit card.