Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshGirls Josh
it's stupid. the author has a problem with technological advancement. privacy is dead, its not coming back. Sterling is no victim. He's an old fart whose old ways didnt change with the times.
|
NO. The author has a problem with Viviano's reprehensible behavior. He does not, nor do I condone what Sterling said.
"Most everyone would agree that Sterling's ideas fail in the marketplace of ideas. Nevertheless, I reluctantly stand on Sterling's side today. What happened to him may have been illegal and was morally wrong.
Start with illegal. In California, you can't record a conversation without the knowledge or consent of both parties. The recording featuring Sterling and V. Stiviano may be the result of a crime. Once she gathered this information, someone leaked it (she denies it was her) -- and it went viral. This is where I think things went morally wrong.
We all say things in private that we might not say in public. Sometimes we have ideas that are not fully developed -- we try them out with our closest friends. Consider it our test-marketplace of ideas. As our ideas develop, we consider whether to make them public. Should we not all have the freedom to make that choice on our own?"...
"In this story, there are two villains. Sterling represents the bad old days. But Stiviano's behavior represents the horrifying future. Shouldn't we condemn the complete breakdown of privacy and trust at least as loudly as we condemn some old man's racist blathering?"
Not good for the world. Not good for the future. Think about the future when one of your kids say something stupid and they are executed for having an idea.
I stand with Randazza on this one.