Anonymous online taunters can be held accountable

[Android Bishop]

what the fuck is this world coming to? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, anybody can and SHOULD be allowed to say whatever the fuck they want wherever the fuck they want.

[Tone Deft]

what the fuck is this world coming to? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, anybody can and SHOULD be allowed to say whatever the fuck they want wherever the fuck they want.

your right to swing your fist ends where my fist begins.

if you have nothing to worry about then let it go to court and let the judge decide.



really, the OP just needs to fuck off, DIAF and get his stank ass off the forum.

[knotkranky]

fo real yo

http://Tone.Deft.wasarrested.com/?loc=S ... knotkranky

[sleepingbird]

what the fuck is this world coming to? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, anybody can and SHOULD be allowed to say whatever the fuck they want wherever the fuck they want.

the world is coming to a moral faux pas, whereas people confuse the term "allowed" with "must be practiced".

a civilized world is surely not the one where one practices his/her right to freedom of speech without regard to the content of the speech and it's effect in limiting other humans freedom.

in a world, where speech has to go without emotional reactionary effect for the sake of utilizing a law to have words fall out of our mouths, everyone must be either dead inside or quite mentally deranged.

on the startingpoint of the topic:
i think, there is a legal difference between conversations in a forum and a blog, since one should be moderated and the heckled can sort of respond and the other is purely one-way.

[OvertoneZero]

what the fuck is this world coming to? Freedom of speech is freedom of speech, anybody can and SHOULD be allowed to say whatever the fuck they want wherever the fuck they want.

Didn't you know? We're all on a clusterfuck to armageddon. All aboooooarardd

[Tone Deft]

fo real yo

http://Tone.Deft.wasarrested.com/?loc=S ... knotkranky

I missed that one. my weekend was crazier than I realized. I did what???

has the news ever reported the world getting better? boobs, blood and bad news sell papers, errr sell advertising on news sites.

of course we're headed to Armageddon, question is, is it tomorrow or a thousand years from tomorrow.

[knotkranky]

he he he

So, the blog in the suit had only five comments on it, and all on one same day, so it was a dead blog and the person took it down when he/she was made aware of the legal action. All that over nothing really. The judge sympathizes with victims of cyber bullys? HUH? Nobody gave a shit, but the model chick ended up on the major news programs cuz of it. Shrewd or dumb luck? Well played i guess.

btw, the news said you have a huge horse penis too. Wasn't sure if you purchased a horse penis or if it's your actual penis they're referring to. That would make a significant difference.

[hurlingdervish]

THERE GOES FREEDOM OF SPEECH

thanks a lot crybabies.

[john doe by choice]

Three months in prison: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 805567.ece - non-anonymous taunting...

People who threaten murder on a social networking site where no one is anonymous deserve some jail time, if for no other reason than just being stupid. Besides, 3 months in juvi is nothing, and it sounds like this girl could use the cool off time.

[karmaofdove]

I can see it now; nerd rage leading to lawsuits.

[hurlingdervish]

Three months in prison: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 805567.ece - non-anonymous taunting...

People who threaten murder on a social networking site where no one is anonymous deserve some jail time, if for no other reason than just being stupid. Besides, 3 months in juvi is nothing, and it sounds like this girl could use the cool off time.

if anything they should just be shut off from the internet

jailtime for an angry threat in text...no that makes no sense sorry. not in the US anyway. The minute we allow the internet to be policed is the minute we give up the freedom that makes internet worthwhile. they have to have a right to say whatever the fuck they want, and the responder has the right to say whatever the fuck they want, and the only one who should have ANY say in the matter is the webhost or mod.

government + internet = absolute shit idea.

[crumhorn]

Your Mother Was a Hamster and Your Father Smelt of Elderberries!

[john doe by choice]

Three months in prison: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 805567.ece - non-anonymous taunting...

People who threaten murder on a social networking site where no one is anonymous deserve some jail time, if for no other reason than just being stupid. Besides, 3 months in juvi is nothing, and it sounds like this girl could use the cool off time.

if anything they should just be shut off from the internet

jailtime for an angry threat in text...no that makes no sense sorry. not in the US anyway. The minute we allow the internet to be policed is the minute we give up the freedom that makes internet worthwhile. they have to have a right to say whatever the fuck they want, and the responder has the right to say whatever the fuck they want, and the only one who should have ANY say in the matter is the webhost or mod.

government + internet = absolute shit idea.

The article said that the girl who was prosecuted has displayed a history of verbal abuse and had been charged for assault prior to actually pleading guilty to the harassment of the other girl. I guess what I'm getting at is that yeah, I wouldn't take a death threat from someone like, say, cperezzzzzz seriously, because we'll never meet, and if we do, we'll never know it, but in this case, these people actually knew each other, and there was enough history there to take it seriously.

So, in the vein of intelligent debate, I have to ask a couple of questions (and I'm not trying to pick a fight, honestly):

Where is the line between anonymous trolling and personal threats from people you know?

If you had a family member who felt as though they had been terrorized by a neighbor who eventually threatened them with death, would you honestly tell your family member that "It's their right to threaten you under the first amendment, just ignore it"? (Sorry to go Bush v. Dukakis on you, but it's a valid point)

As far as "government + internet = absolute shit idea" goes, what about pictures of acts of depravity and violence? An unregulated internet would result in unchecked crime involving child porn and stolen digital content (both of which are plenty bad as is), would it not?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with freedom of speech, but when someone has proof as to very possible, real threat to their well being, I'm on the side of the law on this - if that girl had been threatened on facebook then actually murdered after the threat was ignored, it would be another point in the favor of legislators to make everything much worse for our internet privacy than it is now.

Even freedom of speech is not absolute in the US where the constitution guarantees it - any and all threats to the president, be they joke or real, are taken seriously by the US government, and could land one in a heap of trouble, and no, the constitution wouldn't save you from that.

Finally, and you may or may not appreciate the irony here/know this already, we have the government to thank for the internet - the very people we accuse of meddling and twisting information are also responsible for the creation of the largest portal to worldwide information ever known, and I think it's naive to believe that the internet isn't being policed by the people who handed us, the average joe, this power.

[hurlingdervish]

well the government had hand in starting it but its still not being policed. if it was people would be fined or even ARRESTED for posting pictures of them smoking weed or exposing themselves.

the difference between a death threat in real life and on the internet is HUGE

in real life you probably know them, and they know you, your family, where you live, and they have the potential to stalk you on the way to work without any techy knowledge like how to get your address from your ip or find records of your credit card

on the internet, you don't know the person who is threatening you anymore than they know you. and they aren't easily going to back up any threats they make without serious knowledge of how to gain your personal information. and lets face it the people making the threats aren't smart enough to do any of that.

its the mod's business to ban them, not the affected to sue.

keep in mind that its 60 year olds that make the law and they have NO clue what is what on the internet and never will at this rate, so any laws they implement will be far too extreme for the circumstances.

[john doe by choice]

well the government had hand in starting it but its still not being policed. if it was people would be fined or even ARRESTED for posting pictures of them smoking weed or exposing themselves.

I would disagree about it not being policed, but I doubt either of us has real proof to offer one way or the other. There is also a big difference between people exposing themselves/smoking weed and pictures of people with mass quantities of drugs and having sex with kids, proof of which would directly instigate policing directly connected to the internet, should these pictures be found on the internet. As it is, the government would be wasting incalculable amounts of time were they to pursue your average pothead/flasher, which is why a lot of them get off with little repercussion in comparison to people who trade in child porn and sell mass quantities of drugs.

the difference between a death threat in real life and on the internet is HUGE

I would have to disagree there, and I know there are enough rockers with psycho ex's on this forum that would agree with me - if one of my ex's posted a comment/emailed me on facebook about murdering me, you bet your ass I'd report it - with some people, you just can't take the chance that they're bullshitting you. Maybe you haven't had the pleasure of having such a woman in your life, but you'll know after you've had one, and you will probably find yourself agreeing with me at that point.

in real life you probably know them, and they know you, your family, where you live, and they have the potential to stalk you on the way to work without any techy knowledge like how to get your address from your ip or find records of your credit card

I guess I don't get where that comment is coming from, of course they have better opportunities to stalk in real life if they know you. The point is that the idiot in the the article made a public death threat to someone who has a history with her, and the possibility of it being real was evident enough that she plead guilty.

on the internet, you don't know the person who is threatening you anymore than they know you. and they aren't easily going to back up any threats they make without serious knowledge of how to gain your personal information. and lets face it the people making the threats aren't smart enough to do any of that.

I absolutely agree with that - that's exactly what I was saying about meeting someone like cperezzzzz in real life.

its the mod's business to ban them, not the affected to sue.

I agree, in the case of a threat posted on a forum by someone you don't know, but not in the case where there is no mod, such as facebook, and especially not in a case where someone has already had the police called on her for stalking and physically harassing someone in real life multiple times over four years. Also, the girl wasn't sued, she was booked with charges pressed against her for harassment, which is a whole different animal than the model suing a blogger in civil court for defamation (see the very first post in this thread, which is different than the article that was I originally responding to - personally, I think that lawsuit is bullshit, but no more bullshit than anonymously slandering someone for no good reason).

keep in mind that its 60 year olds that make the law and they have NO clue what is what on the internet and never will at this rate, so any laws they implement will be far too extreme for the circumstances.

I do agree with that, and I believe such a policy that puts people who would be retired in charge of our country is absolutely fucked up, but it doesn't change the fact that those people are in charge, senior citizens put them there and outvote every other demographic in the country, which leads me to a point about legislation that is pretty much undeniable:

if that girl had been threatened on facebook then actually murdered after the threat was ignored, it would be another point in the favor of legislators to make everything much worse for our internet privacy than it is now.