Yay, none in my country!
Some banana republic? Or a country like Switzerland that’s probably missing from the list, but not because there aren’t any banned books?
Not a banana republic. And we simply don’t ban books. Like, some might be banned implicitly because of illegal content, for example a child porn book wouldn’t really fly here, but that’s because of the content, book itself wouldn’t be banned, you would just go to prison for sharing child pornography. I assume I could find other illegal content that would result in an implicit ban.
But there’s no government body that even can create a list of books that should be banned. Hopefully it stays that way.
You’re right. Looking at the list again, there are a lot of countries missing. Like Finland, which vaionko mentioned and several others from all kinds of continents. But I think what you said also applies to a lot of other democratic and free countries in the list. For example if I look at the list of Germany, where I’m from… That mainly lists books that include holocaust denial (which is a crime here, due to history) or other misinformation concerning that. And instructional books on how to build bombs or poison someone. So it’s not like our courts are banning books without a proper reason, either. And I think it mainly concerns distributing and selling those books. Owning them is fine, with more or less the one exception of child pornography.
And it’s not the government’s job to ban books here, either. These are some individual(?) court rulings.
But with that said, my country isn’t at the top of freedom of speech. I think we’re cutting down on libel and defamation more than some other countries. And sometimes an author or publisher gets sued for publishing a book containing doxxing or lots of personal information abot celebrities/polititians without their consent. And then that’s effectively banned from being distributed.
You really think it’s common for free countries to ban books. I’m pretty sure my country of Finland (not "some banana republic) does not have any banned books.
Kids 16 and under accessing social media. Responsibility should be on their parents and household, not the government.
Gonna have to disagree with you for two reasons:
- it’s not actually illegal (except in Australia soon I guess)
- when everyone’s a user, the social aspect makes it practically impossible for single households to impose limits without making their child a pariah
Fair, not yet but the bill has passed and it’s now being written into law in Australia, where I live. I agree that it’ll be difficult for the child to be the odd one out if most people in society are doing something that they’re banned from doing at home but when has that stopped society from progressing? Why teach to cave into societal pressure when you can apply critical thinking as to why it’s being limited in the first place?
Euthanasia. Access to free and humane end of life services should be a fundamental human right for all adults everywhere.
Bypassing DRM for personal use
How is that illegal?
Ask the record/movie/book/game companies that want you to buy the same content every time they come out with a new medium for you to consume it
Everything’s legal when you’re at sea!
Yarrr!
!piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com (inaccessible on lemmy.world instance)
That explains a lot. Why is it inaccessible?
lemmy.world admins didn’t want to face the wrath of corporate lawyers, I assume. So they blocked it.
But that’s the beauty of the fediverse, they cant kill piracy in all of lemmy. Hop to anothe instance and everything is perfectly there!
Because of the implication?
Both, international law or country law doesn’t apply outside of the territorial waters of a country.
Freedom of speech in China.
There is freedom of speech.
Just not freedom after speech.
Taking food when you have no food
Euthanasia/medically assisted suicide.
The cruelty to force people to stay alive while slowly dying and suffering with terminal diseases is horrible. It’s traumatic for everyone involved, and it’s pointless.
We give animals more dignity in death than we do humans.
Pets*
*animals. If people come across (irreparably) hurt wild animals, those tend to get killed as well
I think male chicks get treated worse than humans when they are identified at the factory farms
Yes but also there are some diseases where I’d take death by shredder over slowly wasting away
Vigilante Justice
If the law and authority has failed you, you should be allowed to take matters into your own hands.
And if the vigilante thinks they are absolutely justified to shoot someone for walking across their lawn?
removed by mod
removed by mod
So like what happened to Ahmaud Arbery?
Yeah! Not enough lynching going on nowadays.
/s (almost forgot it)
removed by mod
removed by mod
You’re somewhat impressive, in your own unique way.
Congrats for being the first to join my (short) list of blocked accounts at your very first attempt. That’s a first.
Dumpster diving. Doesn’t matter if it’s food or merchandise. It should be illegal to lock a dumpster or willfully destroy usable goods.
You’ve never had to repeatedly clean trash slurry off of a concrete slab because junkies are terrible people who have no manners. If people could be trusted to not redistribute the trash across the land I wouldn’t mind so much
If capitalism could be trusted not to put valuable items in the trash, it wouldn’t be a problem.
If it’s in the dumpster, it’s garbage.
What you really want is the usable food to not end up in the dumpster in the first place.
If you don’t want Amazon trashing all their returns, don’t buy from them in the first place.
Some stuff is in the garbage because a corporation doesn’t want to devalue the item they’re selling by giving away the same thing for free. Waste is waste. There’s not much difference between cotton garments, and a box of pop tarts, from a resources standpoint.
Ah, so getting things out of the trash could be legal, but making a mess from a dumpster should have consequences
Enforcing that would take a lot more money than a padlock.
A better idea would be to charge businesses for the downstream costs of externalities like waste. Make them self-enforce by making it more expensive to dump recyclable or reusable materials.
Dumpster diving laws are more about trespassing and removing liability anyway.
Locking dumpsters is important in some areas so wild life dosen’t get into them. To quote the National Parks service,
“There is a significant overlap between the intelligence of the smartest bears and the dumbest humans”.
Most businesses lock the dumpsters because trash service is expensive, and if you don’t lock them people will pull up with a pickup bed full of trash and fill them up.
Prostitution. Keeping it illegal makes it so much worse for everyone involved except human traffickers.
It would be such a large boost in tax revenue at the very least.
I love the idea of someone being brought up for tax evasion charges because they were only claiming a blowjob rate when they were doing anal.
This could be the most interesting audit in the history of the IRS.
In my country, to crack down on tax evasion by small businesses people can give their tax payer number when they buy something (say food at a restaurant) and a copy of the receipt automatically gets passed on to the taxman (there’s a lottery on those and people can get some money from it, which is how the State incentivises people to do this, plus you can get some tax discounts on some kinds of expenses such as medicine).
All this to say that the idea of the taxman getting a copy of an itemized receipt for sex work services is just delicious.
PS: Around here sex work is unregulated, meaning not illegal (though profiting of other people’s sex work is illegal) but not explicitly legal and regulated.
Being homeless
in nycOh thats not just NYC, its basically everywhere.
Youre right I’m not thinking big picture
deleted by creator
With limits
Fentanyl, for example, should require doctors guidance at least, and forced medical help to get off of it when you’re displaying addiction behavior.
Euthanasia should also be legal, but with strict rules. You want to avoid someone off themselves just because they’re having a bad day
People already choose to buy and use fentanyl without a doctors prescription, why should they be treated as criminals? If a junkie commits crimes because they are high, that should be criminal, and if a junkie commits crimes to get more drugs, that should be criminal, but I do not see a purpose in criminalizing fentanyl for consenting adults.
You prohibit Fentanyl because it’s so friggin addictive and lethal. Most drugs are rather harmless (as alcohol is “harmless”) so sure. Just keep an eye on people and where someone falls off the wagon, have them undergoing forced treatment to get them back okay again.
Fentanyl is like meth, it’s too much, there is no such thing as a little bit or any good outcome
I remain unconvinced. fentanyl is already illegal, yet people die from it, so making it illegal is already ineffective. Instead of spending money on police, lets spend it on treatment.
Rescuing animals who would be harmed by their owners without intervention.
Abortion. No specific circumstances needed. If a woman wants an abortion, it should be allowed. There is no one getting late term abortions that didn’t want the child and something tragic happened and now they need one.
As a caveat to the last sentence, it’s definitely possible for women to not know they’re pregnant until very late in the process. There have even been women who only found out they were pregnant when they went into labor.
I know a family that had 6 hours of pregnancy, and they, like most in the same situation, did not seek a late term abortion. By the time labor sets in, the fetus is developed enough to survive outside the womb, so anyone seeking to end the pregnancy without taking possession of a child, should be allowed to simply demand that the fetus be removed. It should be up to the medical staff to decide how.
At what point is it no longer an abortion, though?
That’s not a gotcha, it’s very simple. Doctors decide whether a fetus is viable outside the womb, and if it is, then it’s a birth. The line for this keeps shifting earlier as neonatal medicine improves. Doctors aren’t going to destroy a child that can live, they took a hypocratic oath. Once it’s outside on its own, “my body my choice” no longer applies.
In fact, the opposite is frequently a problem, where enormous intervention is given to keep an extremely premature child alive when all you are doing is guaranteeing them a lot of suffering. There are plenty of parents who wish in retrospect that the option to simply not intervene had been offered, because they see how much pain their child goes through. It is already perfectly fine, legally and ethically, to decide that a child is simply too weak to have a good quality of life. You can offer them milk (if they feed on their own that is a sign of good health and probably won’t ever happen with a case like this), but after that hold them and say goodbye.
People talking about late term abortions and killing babies after ripping them out of the womb at 40 weeks are completely divorced from reality. That’s Alex Jones level bullshit.
