Ah, but it bans something that it just so happens only Muslims would wear. Suspicious, no?

> Also accusations of Big Brother coming from Americans at this point is rather hilarious.

Irrelevant. If you think the NSA is alone, you're delusional.

We don't ban whole works. Australia does.

> Hell, even movie ratings are a form of censorship,

Nonsense. Self-imposed rating systems are in no way comparable to governmental censorship.

> Some US states prevent atheists from holding political office

Wrong. Those laws may be on the books, but they could never be enforced, due to the First Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

> Your wikipedia link has little that Australia has banned in the past couple of decades

It's the principle of the thing.

> Idealism is nice... until it's tested, then pragmatism needs to have a voice.

Wrong. Utterly wrong. If you abandon your principles the moment they're tested, they were never your fucking principles at all.

> But the pragmatism of legislating against holocaust denial or sporting the swastika is basically the same as anti-defamation legislation: it's saying 'don't diminish this'.

By making it seem that it can't fight deniers on an equal footing, that it needs laws to bolster its argument.

> those laws are very specific in terms of what they ban

So? That doesn't make it better.

> US free speech also does nothing to solve any of the real problems modern America has with anti-Mexican and anti-Muslim racism.

We don't ban face veils. Talk to me about racism when you've stopped banning veils.

> They're there to stem violent nationalism, the European forms of which don't exist in the US.

We had the KKK, which was just as violent and just as nationalistic as European forms of it. We were able to destroy it (twice!) without resorting to the destruction of fundamental freedoms.

Wow. This is monumentally dishonest, especially given how the law came to be and how it's been applied.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/when-did-islamop...

> but rather in the fact that face coverings make identification difficult

A poor reason to assault someone's culture and religion. Rather Big Brotherish, in fact.

> and do not fit in with the expected norms for social interaction in that country.

Back in the day, allowing blacks and whites into the same schools didn't fit in with the expected norms for social interaction in the USA. We got over it.

> France also has a ban on the display of religious symbols in public schools.

This I don't have a huge problem with, even though it seems a bit over-broad. Does it also prohibit people from wearing cross necklaces, for example? How about if someone had put ashes on their face for Ash Wednesday?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Australia

It's insane.

Also, there are the defamation laws:

https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html

> In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others.

Basically, defamation laws in the USA are much more defendant-friendly compared to their equivalents in Commonwealth countries. Australia deserves much praise for apparently being much better in this regard compared to the UK, for example: Australian law recognizes truth to be an absolute defense, which is not generally the case in Commonwealth libel laws.

Canada deserves special approbation for its insane hate speech laws:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commissio...

Which are similar to the insane laws against denying the Holocaust or even using certain images in parts of Europe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafgesetzbuch_%C2%A7_86a

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post%E2%80%93World_War_II_legal...

There have been just as many substantial fascist parties in places with those laws as there are in places without them: Zero. They're an attack on free expression, a universal human right, and they're an absurd over-reaction, an example of terrified cowering at a few worthless fools. What's worse, they do nothing to solve any of the real problems modern Europe has with anti-Roma and anti-Muslim racism.

We're also much less racist than Europe, for example: We haven't banned wearing traditional Muslim garb, for example, and we don't have the hatred of the Roma which is endemic to the European continent.

For example, "In this house, you always clean up": The categorical imperative only works to argue against this if you try to find a way to apply it to every household; the veil of ignorance works simply by forcing the members of the household to be ignorant about who 'you' refers to.

GNU Emacs is much better. It's easier to use and easier to extend.

It's almost as funny as Heinlein just assuming that every computer expert would need to have tools to repair hardware. He never quite wrapped his mind around someone focusing exclusively on software; maybe he never grasped 'software' as a distinct concept.

Heh.

When the birth rate is much above replacement, we worry about overpopulation. AND THAT'S TERRIBLE.

When the birth rate is near or below replacement, we worry about underpopulation. AND THAT'S TERRIBLE.

It wouldn't be nearly as funny if it weren't the same people worrying each time.

It's a modern ISA, implemented by modern microarchitectures.

The laws didn't come from nowhere, but they certainly had an impact on the majority's way of thinking. Why else would the Religious Right be so absolutely set against laws allowing same-sex marriage? If laws didn't change social values, they'd have nothing to fear from them.

Ignoring the fact this is likely false, this has nothing to do with copyright. It's a matter of trademark law, and Disney would in no way lose the trademark over any of its characters if certain specific films featuring them were released into the public domain.

So get off your horse about needing guns to protect yourself from the government. The government could destroy you and your guns in a second if it wanted to.

If you want to be persuasive, stick to defending yourself against home invasion. That's a band-aid on a serious problem, but at least it's a historically and logically honest argument.