Anderson

"Free speech" standards in the US didn't really develop due to the originalism doctrine prevailing with regard to this question up to present. But this can always change if the balance of power shifts to progressives for a period of time. Remember, it's also the same Constitution that proclaims a right to bear arms even though the entire world is moving to restrict and regulate the illegal circulation of firearms. Hate speech laws can work best against those who already have a platform, an audience willing to defend violence. Common folk don't have that leverage if nobody's listening. Also, violent speech can easily translate to violent actions if it's tolerated too much. People not only have the right to speak and impart information. They also have the right to cover themselves from disinformation. Let's also not overlook the irony that the US is also the place where nefarious practices such as "free speech zones" continue to exist. The US also has the strictest and most savage Copyright laws in the world that severely hamper freedom of speech and the right to information. Copyright basically creates patents on information. This trend has unfortunately spread to other countries and has lead to the persecution of The Pirate Bay and many others. I have split feelings about your last point. Sometimes covering up someone may encourage more violence. But on the other hand, neither does letting it slide in public guarantee that there will be debate. There will never be an ideal answer to all challenges in life. But neither can absolute free speech save us here. I really love Snowden's piece on self-censorship as the most dangerous form of censorship. So, external censorship is not the culprit, really: https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/on-censorship-pt-1 Just pointing out that not a single violent attack has been prevented by external censorship does not mean that we should have ISIS executions and propaganda videos live every time they happen. Human attention span is also very limited. AFAIK an average human can keep in mind about 2-3 things concurrently. Everything else one may overlook or forget if it's not written down. So, frivolous mediocrities are only good at distracting us from what really matters in society's agenda. I believe that's what hate speech laws are here for. To help find that golden balance between the 2 extremes - invasive censorship and complacency over hostility growing on a fantastic scale. I mean, that's what the internet was always famous for. Infinite rage, holy wars. How much of that is actually worth reading except just for the lulz over human stupidity? After all, polarization in society doesn't lead democracy to good places.

Same about defamation, libel laws. But they still exist even if there's a degree of subjectivity to it all. It's not about a mathematically 100% precise definition. Such things do not exist and are impossible. Perfect laws don't exist neither. It's about the principle of tolerance. Free speech activists advocacy groups usually don't fight for the right thing. What they really want is to say anything while never being held responsible for it. This has nothing in common with constructive dialogue. It's just vanity and pride. Forgetting that we all stand upon the shoulders of giants. Always be mindful that hate speech is political correctness as it is attempted to be lumped into by politicians. Hate speech is a much more narrow, precise concept. What I'm saying is - telling the truth doesn't mean that one has to personally attack someone. It can be done without that. Vehement language in an of itself is not a problem. It's when aggression is deliberately directed against an identifiable group of people. So this is why to me it's obvious that the current trend to promote hate speech laws is a good thing.

Ofc they are not a worldwide lawmaking body. But they contribute heavily alongside the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Court of Human Rights to the same goal. Neither can solely the US dictate what free speech means. Our standards human rights have an evolutive interpretation. The European Convention on Human Rights is a "living instrument" to be viewed in light of present-day conditions. The strict method of interpreting the US Constitution from the POV of the "founding fathers" keeps us in the 18'th century. In any case, there is already a well established jurisprudence allowing moderation to ensure anonymous user's liability: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-155105 Agreed that no precise legal definition poses a challenge. But it is not an impediment to identify such cases. Bad laws can be interpreted well by good lawyers. That's why the US doesn't rely on laws but on legal precedent. In Europe soft law does this job well. To this end, fairly good descriptions have been made by international human rights institutions in offering their legal expertise. For example a few extracts from the judgement above: "48. In his report of 16 May 2011 (A/HRC/17/27) to the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression stated the following. “25. As such, legitimate types of information which may be restricted include child pornography (to protect the rights of children), hate speech (to protect the rights of affected communities), defamation (to protect the rights and reputation of others against unwarranted attacks), direct and public incitement to commit genocide (to protect the rights of others), and advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (to protect the rights of others, such as the right to life). ... 27. In addition, the Special Rapporteur emphasizes that due to the unique characteristics of the Internet, regulations or restrictions which may be deemed legitimate and proportionate for traditional media are often not so with regard to the Internet. For example, in cases of defamation of individuals’ reputation, given the ability of the individual concerned to exercise his/her right of reply instantly to restore the harm caused, the types of sanctions that are applied to offline defamation may be unnecessary or disproportionate. ... ... 43. The Special Rapporteur believes that censorship measures should never be delegated to a private entity, and that no one should be held liable for content on the Internet of which they are not the author. Indeed, no State should use or force intermediaries to undertake censorship on its behalf ... ... 74. Intermediaries play a fundamental role in enabling Internet users to enjoy their right to freedom of expression and access to information. Given their unprecedented influence over how and what is circulated on the Internet, States have increasingly sought to exert control over them and to hold them legally liable for failing to prevent access to content deemed to be illegal.” 49. A Joint Declaration by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Opinion and Expression, the OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) Representative on Freedom of the Media and the OAS (Organization of American States) Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression, adopted on 21 December 2005, stated the following: “No one should be liable for content on the Internet of which they are not the author, unless they have either adopted that content as their own or refused to obey a court order to remove that content.”" and "[16]. “Hate speech” remains undefined. “There is no universally accepted definition of ‘hate speech’. The term encompasses a wide array of hateful messages, ranging from offensive, derogatory, abusive and negative stereotyping remarks and comments, to intimidating, inflammatory speech inciting violence against specific individuals and groups. Only the most egregious forms of hate speech, namely those constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, are generally considered unlawful” (Report of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues, Rita Izsák (A/HRC/28/64), Human Rights Council, Twenty-eighth session)."

Hate speech is a legit legal, human rights doctrine: https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/hate-speech Wikileaks hermits were right all along. But they'll find other scapegoats like that time with #stopKony - Kony 2012. It's just sad that Vietnam didn't teach them anything.

The beat is really dope for what must be one of the oldest vids on YT: The coolest thing is that the channel is still active. Still dope beats with good content:

Looks like we need to find accountant players who will do all the accounting for TDM for freeeeeee But seriously though, there can't be any profit from TDM. It's just about getting around red rape bureaucracy. Right now I'm in the middle of sorting a legal nightmare around my dad's death and its aftermath. There's more "paper chase" about this than there is actual meaning behind these papers. Any official doing public service just wants to get rid of petitioners. Nobody's actually going to read TDM's legal documents before going to bed because they would be so exciting. Have to be realistic about this. I also have the sad experience where an NGO I work with is practically on its death bed because its members went abroad. Others like my dad died or are in very poor health and are unable to go on. So if TDM is alive or not depends more on contributors than on the fact that there might be a legal entity responsible for the IP. On the other hand, maybe visibility on Steam and other platforms could help find more contributors. Maybe there's countries where it's really easy to create the plainest legal entity. No profits = a minimum of accounting. Maybe there's some expertise, grants, donors that can offer support to legally register TDM. But again, drafting a project proposal itself requires time, effort, thought. One small step for man, one giant leap for TDM.

Steam should really lighten up on those rules for new games. I don't know if there were such draconian conditions when the Steam Greenlight page was submitted. It's not like over 9000 hentai games will do any harm to Steam's library. At least there's choice and stuff.

another great ad. possibly the best

We need an FM for TDM like this. Please do something like this someone lol

Not sure what it's called but it's the poster child for every Thief mission. Heard it in some TDM FM's too.

I hope we'll get more stalker memes

https://www.humblebundle.com/store/surviving-mars-deluxe-edition-free-game

I wish main menu music was a non-intrusive ambient and not proper music. Doesn't get old. Something discreet like Thief: Deadly Shadows. The wallpaper animation is not mandatory as there is already a slideshow of concept art in the background of TDM's main menu. Thief: Deadly Shadows has this seamless, endless loop of ambient. It's much more obvious in TDM that the music is on replay:

Perhaps this should be stickied in OP - so as not to spam further each update, it's easier for everyone interested to go here regularly to track the latest limited time free Steam giveaways: https://steamdb.info/upcoming/free/

Tell me why: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1180660/Tell_Me_Why/ Not to be confused with the awesome song:

Skynet is coming if human rights continue to be weaponized: https://www.businessinsider.com/killer-drone-hunted-down-human-target-without-being-told-un-2021-5?r=DE&IR=T&fbclid=IwAR1bztY-IUfZ0veSD2C1gsKhgYmHXEspcL4hBMpzcHrFvXoYxKDIb7FBeh8

Company of Heroes 2 as well.

Self imposed deadlines help against procrastination, but you shouldn't kill yourself and your health.

The door looks weird but the candle warmly reminds me of the pleasant shades from Thief: Deadly Shadows.

RIP grayman. His FM's were very professional. Sad that he didn't manage to finish the William Steele series. But what he did was monumental. He could've lived longer. No words of condolences shall replace him. Lots of people seem to pass away lately. In 2020 I lost my grandfather who died from chronic heart and cardiovascular issues. This year I lost my father due to losing the fight against Covid-19. It resulted in thrombosis and death. Moving on is the hardest part for friends and family. After the initial shock, you kind of get used to it. But, I guess we fully realize the depth of the tragedy in the aftermath along the way. Pardon for the lack of timing but maybe there should be a note regarding grayman's death on this page: https://www.thedarkmod.com/team/

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1158450/GALAXIUM/

Well it's not like the Government can't take data without asking as they did before: http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-186048 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-204588