http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05...ternet-flamers
I'm sorry DevDave, but I think this bill might just make you a felon :grin:
Printable View
http://scitech.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05...ternet-flamers
I'm sorry DevDave, but I think this bill might just make you a felon :grin:
This is what happens when the people making the laws think that the internet is a series of tubes. :embarassed:
Save Dave! Save Dave! Save Dave!
:nospam: :nospam:
it is always the one you least suspect... Of all the countries, of all the nations with free speech, to anticipate US to pass this...
On the other hand, the law reflects the American concern with safety, one that nearly always goes beyond all reason and logic. Write somewhere in a school, or call to a school in US and write out/yell out "Bomb!" and the school will be closed for a day while a bomb detection and removal squad will be called in. Required by law. I know of one school in my city/town which had an average of 2-3 "bomb" days a week, so much, that certain prudent and innovative teachers found a way to give lessons outside.
My Spanish teacher once shared with me how in the college she atteneded, whenever one would not "feel" or was simply not ready to take a test, they would pull off the same thing, and close down the whole college for a day. :daisy: Having 1,000 people die is 1,000 times cheaper than doing this.
How is it even possible to be harassed over the internet? It isn't like these are people you see everyday, you're choosing to communicate with them. Just ignore it. :dizzy2:
Some very knowledgeable commenting:
CRQuote:
What are Rep. Linda Sanchez and the others thinking here? Are they just taking the view that "criminalize it all, let the prosecutors sort it out"? Even if that's so, won't their work amount to nothing, if the law is struck down as facially overbroad -- as I'm pretty certain it would be? Or are they just trying to score political points here with their constituents, with little regard to whether the law will actually do any good? I try to focus my posts mostly on what people do, not on their motives, but here the drafting is so shoddy that I just wonder why this happened.
My question is, how is it even possible to not be harassed over the Internet? Not to mention, hundreds of thousands of people commit suicide due to RL harassment. Everyone is harassed in RL. Same online.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tratorix
What is the logic of banning it online but not in RL? Because it is easier to monitor it online? So should we ban murder in schools, but not in ghettos, because it is easier to control it in school, and the incidence is less frequent? Is the speech free when a man cannot express any negative things or emotions? When everything must and is sugar-coated beyond a thick veil of deception?
True enough. I'm just saying, online you have options for dealing with it you don't in RL. If someone walks up to me and starts running their mouth, I can't click an ignore button.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus
I will save true to DevDave, even when he's on the "inside." I'll wait for him. Maybe some incarceration will teach him to stop sleeping around on me.
Gee, and I thought being banned was bad enough... Life never fails to show that smiling today is indeed wise, for today will inevitably be worse. For every gain we make in one direction, we take a stop back in the other.
Intelligent lawmaking seems to be incompatible with bureaucracy. Temp-banning offenders, by cutting of their Internet would seem more sensible, but now we have to fill the overcrowded (definite litotes there) American jails even fuller. Soon enough, one will be arrested for doing practically anything more than simple existence in US.
I will await 4chan's trial.
This will get tossed. Too much opportunity for a "chilling effect" on free speech. Sanchez will have to go back to the drawing board.
This goes under the same category as banning paintball cause of school shootings.
Politicians trying to get cheap points without having a clue what so ever.
:jumping:
I can't wait. :devil:
By the way, in the spirit of fairness, Devastatin' Dave does not harass. He trolls.
He get's off on a technicality. (Or Rush Limbaugh, more usually. ~;p)
It's on the tip of their nose but requires some force to be applied to work properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tratorix
I'm not sure clicking it is entirely legal though.
But yes, I've been missing dave as well.
What a ridiculous proposal, it will never get through.
Never underestimate the stupidity of the US Congress.Quote:
Originally Posted by JAG
can´t wait to be officially a criminal in the US.....I´ll be outside your borders and taunting your inability to apprehend me...MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :evil:
what a stupid..stupid excuse for a law.~:rolleyes:
Barricade the Backroom!
Take up your smileys!:laugh4:
Protect your Catholic Wives!
It is very sad about people killing themselves because of internet harrasment, but surely the real issue is harrasment, the general and non-specific kind? It is about dicks being big dicks to people who simply cannot take it.
What we need are more MODs like the ones we have here at the .org, I never feel safe when I commit the crime of flaming around here
I was physically bullied back in secondary school, but I've never considered suicide as an option. Never!
The problem with today's society is that weakness has become a virtue to be conserved as weakness is mistaken for innocence. Few parents ever consider strengthening their children, fail to prepare them for life and are required to protect their children.
Parenting isn't about protection, it's about empowerment and a parent who's still overprotective when his child is 13 years old is a failed parent and should be stripped off his rights.If a 13' year old girl can't handle psychological stress on Myspace than her parents should be fired and locked for life.
Empowerment is better than protection because empowerment gives a child the mecanisms to fight. Protection simply prevents the child from succeding in life. When your baby makes his first steps you don't strap a harness to prevent him from falling. A child should not be seen as a safety deposit, a child should be seen as an extension of the parent's life and as such you need to ensure he is at least as powerfull as you.
Emotional stress is part of life.
If kids can't handle forums, impose an age limit to the internet, but you just can't press criminal charges for virtual conflicts and trolling.
No, I think society has become far less brutal in its nature, to be sure this has created an air of overprotectiveness, usually in the form of absurd Health & Safety regs. But to blame a child for being too "weak" and his/her parents for allowing such a thing, is wrong. I'm pretty sure that most of us have been bullied at one time or other by some kid, the fact that we coped does not mean we can expect others to. Laying the blame on an innocent victim of suicide (yes a victim) is going after the wrong person. You should be angry at the idiots who come up with stupid concepts like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cronos Impera