Anonymous online taunters can be held accountable

[hurlingdervish]

so there's definitely two things we are discussing then

1. A continuation of a real life dispute or obsession etc into the digital realm where they use the internet to stalk them demean them

2. a bunch of bored idiots trying to get a rise out of people online

in the first case (which i wasn't actually responding to, just to policing forums and internet in general) the transcription of the discussion online should surely be able to be used in court as evidence...however

if we say that internet postings were the root cause...that would be false, but that's what lawmakers would jump to.

But if by some reason we smarten up to realize that there's no worth in those rash comments and move on, over time, they will be segregated from the whole as insane and will be like a homeless guy yelling at you in the street....you just ignore it
maybe some instances will go too far...but in the instances they do it will either be one of a couple of things
1. a continuation of a real life dispute or
2. "cyber-terrorism"/hacking

but I will defend the asshole calling someone a psycho slut. because they have a right to. We live in a world where narcissists are a dime a dozen and maybe random assholes are the antidote to that.
I will also defend someone making death threats although I think its ridiculous and insane...the worth put in those threats is up to the person receiving them as they have no grounds to believe them unless they have actually done something to warrant guilt to the point of paranoia for their lives...

i have had a psycho ex close my myspace down because she changed my password. but I'm not going to go get my panties in a wad about it...maybe they should develop an "E-Straining order" where they are blocked from sites that you list inaccessible to them

[hurlingdervish]

in the case of this girl

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 805567.ece

she may be evil but is jail the answer?

i say ban her from the internet or from facebook, myspace etc

im sure she would focus her energy elsewhere

or maybe throw her up on XBOX live where theres death threats all day every day 365 days a year from real ANGRY people who are very seriously mad when they lose... but we don't jail them do we?

[john doe by choice]

I think we're on the same page now (or as close as we're going to get, anyway).

Really, a death threat from someone you know is something that anyone has the right to take seriously and defend themselves against, should there be enough to merit worry.

Slinging e-mud at a model from a blog is no big deal, people do that every day, it's why idiots buy tabloid magazines.

I don't think that three months in juvi hall (different from jail, by far) is that big of a deal, especially for someone of that girl's background. It will suck, she'll eat shitty food and not be able to go drinking, she'll miss a semester of college, and it will be on her permanent record, but she needs to be separated from the girl she was harassing, plain and simple, and she did plead guilty, accepting her own fault in the matter. As for her focusing her energy elsewhere, she has a record of harassment dating back 4 years, I'd say she needs her attention forced elsewhere, and three months in juvi is a start.

You're right, the internet posts weren't the root cause, and yes, lawmakers would jump on the internet aspect of the case, as it's what makes headlines and keeps those douchebags paid.

As for how serious her comments were or should be taken, only time will tell.

Xbox live people who sling death threats are pretty much on the same level as anonymous trolls slinging death threats - the odds of a murder resulting from a spat on xbox live between two people who don't actually know each other are simply astronomical.

And yeah, a crazy ex hacking your myspace is pretty common, but a death threat from a crazy ex...let's just say I don't have an ex that I wouldn't take seriously if they said that to me. I don't think any of them would do that, but I would still take it seriously, for myself.

also:

E-Straining order

[H20nly]

Psycho Sluts!!!

[sleepingbird]

the thought, that speech had ever been absolutely free in terms of being non-affective to anything and therefore free - everything else would by logic not be free - is a mere illusion.

the best example of this logical restriction of freedom being that bully case posted here.
Laissez-faire has been proven to generate completely dysfunctional societies quite some time ago now, and the discussion, whether one should be allowed to say anything at anytime in any way, should not even arise for people with a minimum of diplomatic sensitivity.

"my freedom stops, where it limits others" is a useful mantra, even if one can only try.

"freedom of speech" has nothing to do with a "right to say anything that comes to mind".

[hurlingdervish]

"freedom of speech" has nothing to do with a "right to say anything that comes to mind".

actually yes, yes it does.

RAPE

FIRE

BOMB

[H20nly]

CUNT

TERROR

GUN

"my freedom stops, where it limits others" is a useful mantra, even if one can only try

+ 1 for virtuousness

[Android Bishop]

I'm sorry, but the law should not get involved when people's feelings are hurt. I have every right to say whats on my mind and talk shit about whoever I want, I could give two shits if their feelings get hurt as a result. Its up to them to defend themselves or ignore it. It shouldn't be a legal issue.

We live in culture of gutless pussies and perpetual children, running to mommy to protect them instead of dealing with their own damn issues.

[mojofunk]

john doe by choice wrote:

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.

I put a home made bumper sticker on my car that says "Torture Dick Cheney". Now I am feeling nervous. I think I should perhaps cover it up with one of those ribbon magnets, maybe a pink one that says "horay for boobies!"

Or maybe if I just added a comma - "Torture, Dick Cheney". That might suffice.

It's difficult to know what is safe to say in a country with free speech.

[H20nly]

^ It depends what state and county you're in...

[sleepingbird]

the conclusion from all your comments is then, that all and everybody needs to accept all abuse, in it's fullest of psychological harm (which by the way has often been proven to have more impact and repercussions on a human being than physical violence).

your arguments support the legitimisation of every facist, racist, religious extremist group roaming this planet.

"your own fault if you can't/won't defend yourself" seems a primal, highly unintelligent way of thinking, that i more or less thought, would not exist anymore in a being that calls himself civilised.

i don't know, where all you people live and in what kind of circles you travel everyday, but for this very rare occassion of my otherwise latent dissatisfaction with my life, i am quite greatful for my surroundings.

may our paths never cross.

[hurlingdervish]

your arguments support the legitimisation of every facist, racist, religious extremist group roaming this planet.

thats exactly the point dear sir. I have no right to infringe upon a racist saying he hates me as long as he doesn't DO anything about it. American law protects ANY groups right to assemble no matter how disgusting they are. That's the way it should be. If you call that kid a faggot/n-word, you are despicable but why arrest you? If you do something about it that's a hate crime and you will pay even more for it. But obviously you disagree since you don't live here.
the government can't tell us what to say, only what to do.

[sleepingbird]

word IS action.

what exactly do you think bullying does? you are aware, that lives are being broken because of words "only". saying something is a physical action.
calumny is a offense. not in the states? i'd be surprised.

"libel case" also jumps to mind as an example.
how would you sort this then in your interpretation of law?

i can see the dilemma, you are trying to point me towards and don't get me wrong -
i also agree, that there should be free speech in a way that criticism can be held on government, society and such without having to fear imprisonment.

yet my approach ran on a different line of personal communication factors.
i know i can't expect to sort of educate others but i do have the right to not be bothered by people that do not run along my lines of communication practice.

for people, that run their lives in deliberate disregard of the effects of their communication tactics, just because they feel, they need to wave a law as a shield (that is, funnily enough, prescribed and therefore by all means an infringement on their freedom in first place), i can only express my deepest disrespect.

(i realize, that may not be what you all meant, yet a kindergarden-style noise of "blablabla...it's been written" very much comes across in such like that.)


theeeeeen,

coming back to what i was pondering in first place:
not to be behind the wheel of such a diplomatic snowplow, i try to give up certain rights (of course, only i can give them up for myself) of MY freedom of speech, because it seems a useful thing to do, to enhance communication, push a better understanding between me and the people i meet and lastly through that come to better agreements and therefore am more happy with what surrounds me.

as a conclusion, would one (as in my opinion most people do anyway) utilize a similar approach of "manners", one cuts a certain part of his freedom of speech, and hence proving my first argument, that a pure and uncut freedom of speech has hardly ever really existed.

[hurlingdervish]

I completely understand your concerns, obviously bullying can cause psychological damage, but once we start punishing people for hurting others feelings where does it start and end?

to the extreme, imagine kids going to juvie in second grade for making fun of some kid...
I think its up to the private organization to deal with it, so if its at school, the school punishes the child, if its online they get banned, if its on the streets, they can MAYBE get detained for the night if a fight is about to break out

if its a KKK rally then they should be watched closely by cops...etc etc

maybe you could get away with punishing bullies in the UK where people love giving up their rights ( cctv ) but in the US that wouldn't fly. after all lawyers are bullies too.

[sleepingbird]

sorry, but i think you are plain wrongly informed about your own country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying (the graphic on bullying laws or the lack thereof under "school bullying" is quite interesting as well. )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... mation_law
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/person ... ation.html

...way off the picture you are drawing.

on the rest, i'm not from the uk yet and see you are just joking, drawing a parallel from cctv surveillance but hope you are aware that in it's concept it couldn't be more different to my approach on enhancing personal and sociable consciousness and improve myself.

makes me fear, we still talk way past each other.