A normative statement isn't necessarily an attempt to censor someone. You can be for someone having a class of freedoms, which includes the freedom to do things you don't approve of, while disapproving of the manner in which they choose to exercise that freedom.
I am not sure we do have a right to privacy in some generic sense. We have a right to privacy in certain very well defined situations and not in others
So...what right is that? I mean, specifically, in case law? When people do something that causes a substantial effect in the public sphere, they are seen as (at the very least) as a "limited public figure" and in the U.S., journalists have a large amount of protection in the freedom to report on such people.
That's not a right to privacy...at least as precedent is concerned. Once you've done something that has a public impact, or even, involved in something that is now in the public attention, a U.S. news organization can make the case that information about you is of public interest.
Take the Amtrak engineer in the recent Philadelphia crash...as far as I can tell, he most definitely would like to remain out of the spotlight. Yet, because he happened to be the engineer at the time of the crash -- whether or not we know that he directly or even indirectly contributed to the crash -- news orgs have some legal protection in scrutinizing his life, including where he went to school, his job history, and any public social media postings.
Sometimes privacy is accorded out of tradition or convention...for example, the identity of a rape victim who is testifying in a court case is public information, though it is rarely reported except under special circumstances. But in this case, the victim did not intentionally put themselves in this position of public interest, but because court cases are considered to be important for the public to know about, the victim's identity is considered public information.
It should be said that nothing is completely cut and dry, there's always a tension between the public's right to know and privacy. But the right of privacy is usually afforded to victims and for people whom public exposure would cause greater harm than censorship -- i.e. the identity of witnesses in a state case. Bitcoin's creator does not seem to fall into this category.
>Once you've done something that has a public impact, or even, involved in something that is now in the public attention, a U.S. news organization can make the case that information about you is of public interest.
Except there isn't evidence that this guy is Satoshi. So there isn't evidence that he is a public figure.
Also, choosing not to reveal someone's identity is not censorship.
No he doesn't (legally speaking, which I assume is the framework you're adopting based on your use of the term "public figure"). It's totally legal to report facts or opinions about random people. Standards for libel and the burden of proof are different but truth is still a defense.
this is free speech - as long as no one gets arrested for expressing an opinion. Free speech doesn't mean no one gets to disagree with you in a public forum.
I never said it was, and I never asked amyjess not to express his opinion, I was just pointing out that screaming against censorship is completely irrelevant with the parent post, I tough this was pretty clear.
The charitable explanation is that they don't pay attention to usernames (I'm guilty of this too) and default to male pronouns for everyone.
The sinister explanation is that they dug through my post history, saw that I'm trans (I'm very open about it, and in fact I've been discussing my name change in another thread this morning), and decided to misgender me either out of bigotry or just to be hurtful.
juliangregorian I can't reply to your comment so I reply here: I didn't even read the name, I'm not interested gender when I talk to someone online I just defaulted into "his". Was just a curiosity or are you implying I'm being sexist?
Bullshit, you typed out the name, so I know you definitely read it. And yeah, defaulting to 'his' is exactly sexist (it's a rather mild form of it, but still).
> Bullshit, you typed out the name, so I know you definitely read it.
You can cut and past the name from the header of a post without reading it, and without typing it out.
> And yeah, defaulting to 'his' is exactly sexist (it's a rather mild form of it, but still).
Adherence to the English convention of using the masculine grammatical gender for subjects of unknown sex/gender identity might bother some readers, but is only "sexist" by an understanding of sexism that trivializes the term and robs it of substantial meaning.
> You can cut and past the name from the header of a post without reading it, and without typing it out.
Oh really. We are talking about four words here. So are we squinting or something, because you have to be illiterate to not read that incidentally.
> Adherence to the English convention of using the masculine grammatical gender for subjects of unknown sex/gender identity might bother some readers, but is only "sexist" by an understanding of sexism that trivializes the term and robs it of substantial meaning.
Oh brother. Nope, you're the one redefining. See the myriad examples of "avoiding sexist language" style guides. Just because someone isn't getting raped doesn't mean there's no sexism.
you idiot why would I lie? I exactly did that, it's a small word I know but I can't be bothered, also when I code, I always copy paste even small variables, is that a problem for you? son't assume stuff that you have no fucking clue. Anyway why would I trust a nickname to get the gender?
>Oh brother. Nope, you're the one redefining. See the myriad examples of "avoiding sexist language" style guides.
do you whitch hunt everyine that use the wrong word? get a grip
when I talk to people on the phone they always get my gender wrong, I don't correct them because I really couldn't care less,
I was operating under the assumption that you were either lying or really dumb, but you've been fairly effective in convincing me of the latter, so... congratulations?
oh thank you! I really needed your approval, dear nobody on the internet
seriously don't you think all this is too much, just because i used a "his" and not reading a username? I admit that I shouldn't have call you idiot, I just get annoyed by the way you expressed your opinion.
