Anonymous online taunters can be held accountable

[hurlingdervish]

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.

dont know what you are trying to prove there. if you are trying to prove that I'm not a lawyer than you are correct...these are my opinions only. If you call me a cunt, you should be able to without any repercussions. If you say that you are going to kill me, why should I believe you. If it was from real life conflict, then its a real life threat and should be taken seriously, but otherwise its completely baseless... and utterly pointless to prosecute.
"Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation. "
thats all that matters here. NO limitation. none. nada. Thats my only point.

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.

is watching peoples every move in the street any different from watching what they do online? i say no, there isn't much difference.
yea it was a joke, but people in the UK just agree that its OK to give up freedom for a 1% decrease in crime rates

LIVE FREE OR DIE.


you wont be able to persuade me otherwise.

[H20nly]

I don't think the law should step in every time someone decides to be a pussy.

Sometimes you just have to know when to walk away.

Like now.

PEACE!

[nebulae]

Cohen's attorney said he was "happy that the court recognizes that the Internet is not a place where people can freely defame people."

Once again, the legal profession shows us how woefully behind it is on understanding anything about the Internet.

[sleepingbird]

i was merely trying to prove, that the "lawless" situation you described does not exist.
telling me "here it's the law / we have no law on xy" and then a response proving otherwise makes you go, "i'm not a lawer", ....well, interesting approach to convincing me.

maybe i am just being very critical because i've already seen friends of mine being harrassed and stalked.

the argument, that they should simply have the stamina to fight back and if not it's tough luck for them does not sound like a world i want to live in.
people are simply not the same in emotional and mental states and every society (or even families) works on groundrules of understanding and tolerance.
is that being seen as a cut to freedom?

is watching peoples every move in the street any different from watching what they do online? i say no, there isn't much difference.
yea it was a joke, but people in the UK just agree that its OK to give up freedom for a 1% decrease in crime rates

news to me. i used to live in the uk for a few years, and i met nobody who'd either be happy or agree with that situation.
politics, interestgroups, lobbies and media opinionating through them is quite different from what most people might logically think is right. file under: how to influence the masses through words.
i don't quite understand why you come from the topic "use of tools against online harrassment" to "online surveillance".

LIVE FREE OR DIE.

like what? if your neighbour plays loud music you pick a fight to secure your own egoistic right to absolute freedom? no understanding, compromise, diplomacy up for grabs? deary me...
sounds like a rather imperative phrase to inflict un-free thought on oneself.


finally i think i need to clarify, that i am not trying to convince anybody of anything, but that this has been a topic being pondered in my head for quite some time with very mixed conclusions. by no means is my opinion yet fixed and i say, "this is how whatever medium or society should be organized".
i simply want to consider all the viewpoints, before i make up my mind.

[ghast]

We have the right to freedom of speech, but do we have the right to be anonymous? I hope that the answer turns out to be no. Anonymity has brought out the very worst that humanity has to offer. If you wouldn't say it to someones face, then why say it at all? It's a very cowardly thing, and it's just not cool.

[knotkranky]

Yeah that's right, and anonymity isn't that hard in public either but being someone else or falsifying an identity is universally against the law. You can protest in a crowd, hold up a message and not be known, but protesting here has to have a name on it plus an IP and email at abes forum, which is why maybe half are anonymous. It's like blending into a public crowd exercising free-speech. What good is a mob if they're all identifiable?

What about (harassment) rights for special interest groups and their/"our" "free-speech products". I think it rides super close to the subject. I'd watch this one closely, it'll be a biggy.

August 30, 2009

Supreme Court to Revisit ‘Hillary’ Documentary
By ADAM LIPTAK
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/us/30 ... f=politics <<the whole thing)

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will cut short its summer break in early September to hear a new argument in a momentous case that could transform the way political campaigns are conducted.
The case, which arises from a minor political documentary called “Hillary: The Movie,” seemed an oddity when it was first argued in March. Just six months later, it has turned into a juggernaut with the potential to shatter a century-long understanding about the government’s ability to bar corporations from spending money to support political candidates.
The case has also deepened a profound split among liberals, dividing those who view government regulation of political speech as an affront to the First Amendment from those who believe that unlimited corporate campaign spending is a threat to democracy.
At issue is whether the court should overrule a 1990 decision, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates. Re-arguments in the Supreme Court are rare, and the justices’ decision to call for one here may have been prompted by lingering questions about just how far campaign finance laws, including McCain-Feingold, may go in regulating campaign spending by corporations.
The argument, scheduled for Sept. 9, comes at a crucial historical moment, as corporations today almost certainly have more to gain or fear from government action than at any time since the New Deal.
The court’s order calling for re-argument, issued in June, has generated more than 40 friend-of-the-court briefs. As a group, they depict an array of strange bedfellows and uneasy alliances as they debate whether corporations should be free to spend millions of dollars to support the candidates of their choice.
The American Civil Liberties Union and its usual allies are on opposite sides, with the civil rights group fighting shoulder to shoulder with the National Rifle Association to support the corporation that made the film.

[knotkranky]

Is it getting out of hand or is the news just focusing on it? I dunno. Something's gotta give.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8409855

No Joke, Comedian Sued Over Mother-in-Law Humor
Mother-in-law takes stand-up comedian to court for making fun of her in her act
By JOHN ROGERS
The Associated Press

LOS ANGELES

"Take my mother-in-law — please," isn't a joke you're likely to hear often these days from Sunda Croonquist. The veteran comic is being sued by her mother-in-law after making her the punchline of too many jokes.

The mother-in-law is accusing Croonquist of spreading false, defamatory and racist lies with in-law jokes that have become a staple of her routine in nightclubs and on television channels like Comedy Central.

To Croonquist, the in-law jokes seemed like a natural routine after living through one comical culture-clash moment after another: She is half-black, half-Swedish, grew up Roman Catholic and married into a Jewish family. More > http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=8409855

[nathannn]

everyone that has posted in this thread dresses like shit and they have fat asses.
look at how you guys do your make up its so horrible, you all look like prostitutes.
bunch of sluts.

[H20nly]

Die nathannn die!

[knotkranky]

My lawyer is in contact with ableton and will have nathannn's IP and email in about a week.

We suggest he suspends harassment and finds representation immediately.

Thank you.

Mr. KnotKranky
Mr. Robert Shapiro

[H20nly]

[H20nly]

^ psssst. knotkranky

me thinks nathannn used to be in a boy band and had a different name

[knotkranky]

really?



what should i do?

[3osc]

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.

I would like to see how causation was proved. Can you site sources? Describe the method of the study used?

[H20nly]

really?



what should i do?

expedite...

My lawyer is in contact with ableton and will have nathannn's IP and email in about a week.

We suggest he suspends harassment and finds representation immediately.

Thank you.

Mr. KnotKranky
Mr. Robert Shapiro