02خشونت و بی حرمتی

دیدگاه‌ها (10)

دستگاه اتوماتیک ترجمه توسط گوگل ترنسلیت فراهم است. ترجمه‌های مذکور باید ایده‌ای کلی درباره نظر کاربران به شما بدهند اما نمی‌توان به صحت آن‌ها کاملا اتکا کرد. لطفا ترجمه‌ها را با در نظرگرفتن این مساله بخوانید.

1. Malcolm Bush مارس 30, 2019 در 2:57 ق.ظ
   replyبرای پاسخ دادن وارد شوید report Report comment

   Hello All,
   I don’t know a great deal about all this and I’m sort of rushing through with a speed read and a quick reply. I think there are different varieties of violence, and sometimes a mixture of those varieties. I am of the strong belief that some people are inherently more violent than others, for medical reasons. Their childhood can be a big part of things. What I would call social leisure violence, such as football hooliganism, is a particular type that has spread out with the advance of media technology. War is another type of violence which is state organised, which tends to be re labeled and glorified as much as possible. Where government are involved, there many fine speeches made and many new words for violence used. Guantánamo Bay for example was an act of pure highly organised violence and false information that inhibited free speech. This together with the tenure of President Trump has set new values; or the lack of them. The global population has always been about the have and have not. Technology has taken us a long way, but greed and violence will increase across the world. Drugs and alcohol are certainly a major factor in the Streets of the UK where I live and no doubt across much of the world.
2. al ژانویه 6, 2014 در 11:55 ق.ظ
   replyبرای پاسخ دادن وارد شوید report Report comment

   “Many states, mainly for political reasons, and companies, mainly for commercial ones, have already eroded the original dream.”
   When dreaming, we are prepared to accept the most preposterous and nonsensical of ‘experiences’ as reality. Possibly because, until we wake, there is nothing against which to compare the encounter occurring inside an hermetically sealed enclosure. Similarly the interweb has, at the very minimum, proffered an alternate. One that although not necessarily without error, might at least indicate when it is being interfered with. Since where contrast should be found, there will only be uniformity of opinion.

   “If you find a site is blocked”
   it is a sure and certain sign that an ‘understanding’ is being artificially protected and maintained. Because unlike self supporting truth, it cannot stand up to even elementary enquiry? Such as: Please share with the rest of us, that infallible procedure you utilised to confirm your elected ideology’s validity. That we might embrace that evaluation peacefully, without the need for duress.

   “they may imprison people for exchanging information or speaking their minds.”
   Given that their ‘comprehension’ constitutes a perfect representation of reality. Surely allowing others to test it, and thus affirm that actuality, would be the ideal means for disseminating it around the planet. Anything else would be an open admission of doubt, or downright certainty concerning its lack of legitimacy.

   “Western democratic governments denounce these practices.”
   Yet refuse to submit their own ideologies to intimate examination? Which may explain, why those they are in conflict with cannot see a reason they should offer their notions up for objective evaluation either.

   “Google itself has enormous potential power to limit or distort free speech.”
   But also an Achilles’ heel, in the form of a vulnerability to mass boycott?

   “we can lobby our governments to change their laws”
   Some say that if voting had any effect it would be prevented. Might they be drawing that conclusion from examples such as ‘EU referendums’?

   What we appear to be attempting, is analogous to collectively assembling a jigsaw puzzle. Which might prove easier, were we to first identify and agree on the scene we are jointly endeavouring to recreate.
3. Publicspaceshult ژوئن 2, 2012 در 3:19 ب.ظ
   replyبرای پاسخ دادن وارد شوید report Report comment

   The internet is an amazing innovation with no precedent and any limitations upon it would be a shame. To limit it slightly would be to set in action a cascade of fetters that would shatter everything the Internet could have been.
4. Lelinha می 29, 2012 در 8:38 ق.ظ
   replyبرای پاسخ دادن وارد شوید report Report comment

   If we think of what the idea of the internet was in the beginning, the vastest storage of information shared among the whole world, of course it is normal to assume that it would become a vastest opportunity for innumerate crimes. But the basic idea, the true meaning of the whole invention is so valuable and must be absolutely preserved.
   Between the concept of abuse and freedom of speech there’s sometimes a very thin line, but it is always more important to say it all than to oppress ideas.
   Liberty that has been given to some of the big, like Google, and their “privacy respect” is always questionable, like it happened these days in GB, with admitting that Google car has been collecting (and selling) more info than actually needed for “filming the streets”.
   Any clerk with access to information, can always be willing to sell them for a good offer (remember the Swiss bank account holders’ information scandal…). It is just something that can not be stopped. But it must be fought and punished.
   We all deserve to see/read/hear everything that might (or even that might not) interest us, and judge ourselves upon it. Let’s try to keep it that way.
5. mkh_angel می 15, 2012 در 12:35 ب.ظ
   replyبرای پاسخ دادن وارد شوید report Report comment

   I share the importance of preventing the abuse of the content , however like in the comment above the dilemma of what should be considered as an abuse and who should define it is a big deal. And I think there is division in term of the priorities around that world. In the developed countries where there is a reasonable freedom of speech the abuse from the private side is more of an issue than in those countries where there is a constant state repression of the freedom of expression online. Moreover, this type of control does not guarantee protection of the other forms of abuse like child pornography. Thus I believe we the netizens should aim for liberating the online space to allow as much freedom of opinion expression as possible, even if it is at the cost of the abuse.
   • vanessaspisla می 17, 2012 در 11:09 ب.ظ
     replyبرای پاسخ دادن وارد شوید report Report comment

     I agree with you that we have to consider different countries and their cultures. It is very hard to generalise the principles, because it may be that some parts of the world have a completely different view than other parts. So it is quite a challenge to agree on ten principles globally and it is also interesting. I also agree that we have to try to have media which are as open as possible, but I disagree with you that it is even at the cost of the abuse. We have to differentiate between the freedom of speech and abuse. Therefore we have to define principles globally in order to be able decide globally whether this “speech” is accetable or an abuse.

     Ich stimme Dir zu, dass wir verschiedene Länder und deren Kulturen berücksichtigen müssen. Es ist sehr schwer, die Prinzipien zu verallgemeinern, weil es sein kann, dass einige Teile der Welt eine ganz andere Meinung als andere Teile haben. So ist es durchaus eine Herausforderung, auf zehn Prinzipien global zustimmen und es ist auch interessant. Ich stimme auch zu, dass wir versuchen, die Medien so offen wie möglich halten müssen, aber ich stimme Dir nicht zu, dass es auch um den Preis des Missbrauchs ist. Wir müssen zwischen der Freiheit der Rede und Missbrauch unterscheiden. Deshalb müssen wir Prinzipien global definieren, um in der Lage zu sein zu entscheiden, ob diese global “Rede” annehmbare oder ein Missbrauch ist.
6. annemarie_detlef می 14, 2012 در 10:22 ق.ظ
   replyبرای پاسخ دادن وارد شوید report Report comment

   The question of legitimacy is indeed very tricky.
   Public powers should indeed have the power to ‘legitimately’ restrict certain information. Taking an extremely libertarian approach claiming that all information should be ‘free’ is far from the pragmatic reality.
   I would even argue that as the question of legitimacy is such a delicate question that it is virtually impossible to define it in a general principle. When using a phrase like ‘for the greater good of the public’ to define the legitimacy of restricted information, executive powers might however be prone to exploit this principle.
7. Bobo آوریل 8, 2012 در 6:30 ق.ظ
   replyبرای پاسخ دادن وارد شوید report Report comment

   In Italy, two days ago, a lawyer denounced the President of the Republic, the Head of Government, all Ministers and all the Members for:

   – Attack on the integrity, independence and unity of the State;
   – Subversive associations;
   – Attack on the Constitution of the State;
   – Usurpation of political power;
   – Attack on the constitutional bodies;
   – Attack on the political rights of citizens;
   – Political conspiracy by agreement;
   – Political conspiracy by association;

   but … only one independent newspaper broke the news!
   Must be spoken.
8. Bobo آوریل 8, 2012 در 6:22 ق.ظ
   replyبرای پاسخ دادن وارد شوید report Report comment

   I’m here to tell the denied freedom of the press in Italy. This is a real problem.
   The censorship has reached unbearable levels! After the Treaty of Lisbon and the approval of the ACTA treaty, by the European Union, the only resource we have left to procure a real informaizoni is the net…but it also wants to censor the web!
   The project began long ago and came to the public through the bills SOPA and PIPA at the U.S. Congress. In Italy two politicians have already tried to censor the web through the fight pro-copyright.
   It’s necessary that we speak.

   I await the debate, thank you

   Bobo
9. worldjournalismreview فوریه 21, 2012 در 10:17 ب.ظ
   replyبرای پاسخ دادن وارد شوید report Report comment

   …

   A quick glance through raises a couple of issues for WJR …

   This explanation appears a particularly net-centric view for a principle that includes “all other forms of communication” ?

   And, why the overly complicated language regarding corruption – “illegitimate encroachments” – why not just corruption. In seeking to define, a principle should not be limited by complexity.

   …