NY Times Op-Ed: "Get out of gun control, Apple"

[Speedo66]

This op-ed piece in, yes, the NY Times, by a Harvard professor suggests that corps. shouldn't get into free speech issues, including restricting emojis like Apple did with gun related ones.

Here's the piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/o...region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-right-region&_r=0

 

[il_10]

I've noticed of late a greater push back, from what I would consider mostly 'anti' sources, against the heavy-handed tactics that are being used against us. It's heartening to see folks on the other side of the fence calling for fair play.

This is a prime example of someone recognizing how anti 2A action and rhetoric is beginning to affect other principles he holds dearly, like freedom of speech. We've seen it coming for a while in the RTKBA camp, but it may be a useful tool for us to leverage in the future as more people in the 'Anti' side start noticing it.

 

[entropy]

When it affects "their" amendment, they scream bloody murder. Go Figure.

 

[bannockburn]

entropy

When it affects "their" amendment, they scream bloody murder. Go Figure.

Exactly "Right"!

 

[wojownik]

When it affects "their" amendment, they scream bloody murder. Go Figure.

I think I know what you're trying to say, but they are both our amendments. All of ours. Even if the anti's don't want 2A, it grants them rights (even if they don't appreciate those rights). And even if some of us don't like what anti's have to say, 1A gives us the right to push back.

Which, happily, is what is happening in this op ed piece.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

When it affects "their" amendment, they scream bloody murder. Go Figure.

Yeah, I just appreciate the irony.

 

[Red Wind]

Good to see. I have never bought an Apple product and never will. It has nothing to do with guns and all to do with their products and their people. A turnoff from their beginning.

"Different strokes", as Sammy Davis, Jr. always said. Rest in peace ,Sammy. You were one of a kind.

And with Jerry Lewis, the fastest draw in Hollywood's history.

 

[yokel]

Elitist Ivy Leaguers such as Professor Zittrain always neglect to mention how the Constitution’s First Amendment sets the context for the right to keep and bear arms recognized in the Second. Without arms, the people of Britain’s American colonies would have been helpless against the British King’s abuse of his armed forces. They would have been forced to submit to tyranny, as many people slaughtered and abused by tyrannical governments in the 20th Century were compelled to do; and as too many morally and physically disarmed people in other parts of the world are compelled to do today.

When so many of the folks most determined to eviscerate the Second Amendment are leftists, people pretend to be ignorant of this lesson. It was certainly not lost on people like Mao Tse-tung and Che Guevara, whom many of the leftists unaccountably admire. In America the British forces bent on tyranny found themselves swimming in a sea of trouble: a body politic replete with armed antibodies, ready to respond to violent abusers of government power with deadly effect.

 

[Red Wind]

Yokel, your post about the British in the 1770's was so on target that I think I'll change my Sig Line to," If it wasn't for guns, we'd still be British."

An old buddy on Packing.Org used it til PDO's sad sign off on July 26,2007.

 

[YankeeFlyr]

It's not a First Amendment issue, really, since it's not the government removing/changing the emojicon or emoticon. Apple is a corporation and we don't have to buy or keep their products.

Just sayin'...

 

[Somewhere in NM]

When they came for the 5th Amendment, I said nothing, because I'm not a criminal, so why shouldn't I talk to the police?

When they came for the 4th Amendment, I said nothing, because I'm not a terrorist, so what do I have to hide?

When they came for the the 2nd Amendment, I said nothing, because I'm not a gun owner.

When they came for the 1st Amendment, no one said anything.

 

[yokel]

It's not a First Amendment issue, really, since it's not the government removing/changing the emojicon or emoticon. Apple is a corporation and we don't have to buy or keep their products.

Just sayin'...

In this era of globalization, corporations with an unlimited access to wealth have managed to gain enormous political clout and therefore, can change laws to suit them. Corporations can influence government through campaign funding, lobbying, and regulatory agencies.

Corporations can influence general public through advertisement and by controlling mainstream media too. They can also influence international organizations, economic and political agreements. With an unlimited access to money, corporations can easily influence the government in their favor.

 

[Zoogster]

America is corporations, sadly to some extent.

In a capitalist nation where money talks political power flows from business. Government consumes wealth, and relies on businesses to generate it and employ most of the work force they tax.
Large influential companies can and will make their mark on what is and is not considered acceptable in America, which in turn changes what laws are in place saying what is and is not acceptable.
You ignore such companies at your own peril.
The financially successful have the biggest voice in this nation, and corporations represent a lot of the wealth generated and moved around, and so have a large impact on what our laws will be. Don't address them when they are wrong and laws will change in ways you don't want.

 

[Nickotym]

Is there a way to add your own emoji back in and poke them in the eye a little?

 

[ATN082268]

In this era of globalization, corporations with an unlimited access to wealth have managed to gain enormous political clout and therefore, can change laws to suit them. Corporations can influence government through campaign funding, lobbying, and regulatory agencies.

Corporations can influence general public through advertisement and by controlling mainstream media too. They can also influence international organizations, economic and political agreements. With an unlimited access to money, corporations can easily influence the government in their favor.

This reminds me of the 1975 film Rollerball staring James Caan. In that film, the corporations were the government and people sold their freedom for comfort.

 

[wojownik]

Is there a way to add your own emoji back in and poke them in the eye a little?

As I understand it, no. Emojis rely on an standard so that - for instance - the smiley face is interpreted the same way in different systems. (and as an example, all I did just now in this post was type an : followed by ) and the system automatically created the standard smiley face emoji.)

Here is the problem - Microsoft and Apple have both decided to reinvent how they use these specific gun-related emojis. So, someone sending a message might lightheartedly put in a bunch of squirt gun emojis in their Apple, but following the actual specification, the recipient of the message receives a whole bunch of handguns. Which could certainly lead to misinterpretations.

Possible real world problem? Let's say Student A texts Student B from an iPhone using the squirt gun emoji. Student B gets the text on their Android phone, and sees a text with handguns, and interprets it as a threat.

And, in today's climate, you know where this potential scenario could lead to next for Student A and overzealous school authorities. Just remember this post for when this actually happens this year ...