http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com Comments On: Charleston City Paper en-us Copyright 2013 Charleston City Paper. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Charleston City Paper readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Charleston City Paper. webmaster@charlestoncitypaper.com (Charleston City Paper Webmaster) Thu, 23 May 2013 00:00:01 -0400 Thu, 23 May 2013 08:00:00 -0400 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by chrishaire]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 08:44:06 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by chrishaire]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 08:38:43 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Drew Moffat]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 08:27:26 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by brewengineer]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 07:45:47 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Clarice Reecy Hutchins-Warren]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 07:45:40 -0400 Charleston City Paper
Really? I don't believe I "bashed" them at all.
Posted by brewengineer]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 07:25:57 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Talon Williamson]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 06:25:33 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Ron Liberte]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 04:31:43 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Ron Liberte]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 04:27:08 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by CIACulinaryKid]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 00:47:05 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Jim Davis]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 19:16:00 -0400 Charleston City Paper
They point out that no one gets kicked out of any of the participating churches just because someone says they are attracted to someone of the same sex.

They also strongly object to the idea that this proposal will mean an increase in sexual abuse.

This proposal if adopted will help boys grow with the Lord's help to become more loving and helpful men.
Posted by Jean Pierre Katz]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 19:08:46 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by joshl725]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 19:01:08 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Deborah Smoak Bobo]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 18:46:18 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Scott Carpenter]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 18:21:45 -0400 Charleston City Paper
Regulation of content is certainly an aspect of censorship - but it isn't quite worthy of the sort of heavy connotation that censorship demands. Actual suppression of ideas is a far worse notion than the suppression of the word "fuck" or a bare female chest.

Now, sure, there are lots of arguments both ways about why these things are not allowed on television, and if it even matters anymore in an age where at least 90 percent of American households are not watching over-the-air broadcasts anymore (which is how the vast majority of content regulation even got started).

Still, what no one seems to notice here is that those who want to see T'n'A on network TV at 9PM already have lots of other options to experience that, and are probably already watching them.
Posted by mat catastrophe]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 17:48:22 -0400 Charleston City Paper
Let's say that Microsoft Word is the Electronic Voting Machine.
And a hand written paper letter is the paper ballot method.

Suppose there is a small election of 200 votes and a hacker/theif manages to steal the copies of the votes.
Posted by Pipsy]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 17:36:13 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by mat catastrophe]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 17:33:32 -0400 Charleston City Paper
Oh well.
Posted by mat catastrophe]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 17:32:03 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by Paulius]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 17:13:45 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by jinxd]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 16:32:39 -0400 Charleston City Paper
How not shocking that local Scout troops think we pose a demonic threat to children.
Posted by Driftaway]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 15:50:50 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by factoryconnection]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 15:41:40 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by gailcarol]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 15:09:06 -0400 Charleston City Paper Posted by wjhamilton29464]]> Wed, 22 May 2013 14:59:51 -0400 Charleston City Paper