Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (57 users) | |
|
| MoonfireSpam United Kingdom. June 15 2012 09:06. Posts 640 | Profile Blog # |
On June 15 2012 08:45 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 08:42 windsupernova wrote:
Your free speech ends where it starts affecting other peoples rights.
And how do Facebook wall posts (which you can block/delete) or a fake Facebook profile affect your rights?
Probably when they start costing you your job, money, time, lifestyle and you have no way to defend yourself because some pricks have the "right" of being anonymous.
Personally I'd feel much more comfortable knowing if someone goes out spreading a load of shit about me (as in career threatening bullshit, not casual trolling) I can go after them. It does bugger all to infringe my rights, since I don't tend to go off spouting shit about people.
|
|
|
| sunprince United States. June 15 2012 09:10. Posts 2017 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 09:01 lorkac wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 08:43 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
Because being harassed is subjective, it is decided by both a judge, a jury of your peers, and the two people in question sitting across each other. The law is there *because* it isn't obvious.
Try reading the actual law in question. It requires websites to release your private information simply because someone makes a request for it. If the law instead required a judge and jury to establish a finding of fact beforehand, then it wouldn't be nearly as problematic.
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
The reason it reeks of privilege is because only a privileged person would not realize the importance of laws whose only reason of existing is in protecting the citizens from attacks (physical or otherwise).
Only someone with a victim mentality considers subjective harms to be attacks. Privileged people in fact prefer protective laws, because those laws inevitably end up protecting those with privilege and hurting those without. For example, see how many laws meant to "protect citizens" inevitably end up disproportionately punishing minorities and people of low socioeconomic status.
like equal suffrage, civil rights, roe v wade, workers rights, minimum wage, child labor laws, etc...?
None of those laws are examples of an overreaching government compromising freedom in favor of security. A true comparable example would be the Patriot Act.
On June 15 2012 09:06 windsupernova wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 08:45 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:42 windsupernova wrote:
Your free speech ends where it starts affecting other peoples rights.
And how do Facebook wall posts (which you can block/delete) or a fake Facebook profile affect your rights?
Did you read all my post or only that part? Being accused of something as serious as paedophilia can ruin your life. Imagine: - Teachers facebook -Someone accuses him of abusing kids -No matter how quickly he deleted it its bound to have been read by someone -Rumour spreads -Parents find out about that, they go to higher powers -Guy can get fired and probably investigated by the Police -Guy will have to live with the taint of having been accused of that, he will probably have a hard time finding a job as a teacher. Believe it or not, rumors, can drastically affect someones life. And all for what? One guy gets his giggles? And no, nasty rumors are not only a high school thing they happen all the time in the professional world, politics and with very nasty consequences. Contrary to what many people believe the stuff that gets posted online can have real consequences on real people, for both right and wrong.
Sounds to me like the real problem is that we punish people without proof for certain types of accusations. Regardless, I find it extremely doubtful that someone could be fired on the basis of rumors alone, particularly if he can show that they stem from a fake website.
On June 15 2012 09:06 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 08:45 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:42 windsupernova wrote:
Your free speech ends where it starts affecting other peoples rights.
And how do Facebook wall posts (which you can block/delete) or a fake Facebook profile affect your rights?
Probably when they start costing you your job, money, time, lifestyle and you have no way to defend yourself because some pricks have the "right" of being anonymous.
How does either of the above threaten your job, money, time, or lifestyle?Last edit: 2012-06-15 09:14:10 |
| |
|
| MoonfireSpam United Kingdom. June 15 2012 09:17. Posts 640 | Profile Blog # |
On June 15 2012 09:10 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:01 lorkac wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:43 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
Because being harassed is subjective, it is decided by both a judge, a jury of your peers, and the two people in question sitting across each other. The law is there *because* it isn't obvious.
Try reading the actual law in question. It requires websites to release your private information simply because someone makes a request for it. If the law instead required a judge and jury to establish a finding of fact beforehand, then it wouldn't be nearly as problematic.
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
The reason it reeks of privilege is because only a privileged person would not realize the importance of laws whose only reason of existing is in protecting the citizens from attacks (physical or otherwise).
Only someone with a victim mentality considers subjective harms to be attacks. Privileged people in fact prefer protective laws, because those laws inevitably end up protecting those with privilege and hurting those without. For example, see how many laws meant to "protect citizens" inevitably end up disproportionately punishing minorities and people of low socioeconomic status.
like equal suffrage, civil rights, roe v wade, workers rights, minimum wage, child labor laws, etc...?
None of those laws are examples of an overreaching government compromising freedom in favor of security. A true comparable example would be the Patriot Act.
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:06 MoonfireSpam wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:45 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:42 windsupernova wrote:
Your free speech ends where it starts affecting other peoples rights.
And how do Facebook wall posts (which you can block/delete) or a fake Facebook profile affect your rights?
Probably when they start costing you your job, money, time, lifestyle and you have no way to defend yourself because some pricks have the "right" of being anonymous.
How does either of the above threaten your job, money, time, or lifestyle?
"In October 2008, a rumor that Apple CEO Steve Jobs suffered a major heart attack circulated. Although the rumor would be proven false, its rapid transmission and initial adoption as fact by investors had substantial impact, resulting in a $9 billion market value loss." - http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2011/09/16/how-to-stop-rumors-before-they-ruin-your-brand/
edit: Of course rumours and hearsay are just that, when they become published as fact (i.e. libel) and people eat it up, it can seriously fuck people up. I am of course not just talking about Facebook wall posts, but publishing stuff on the internet in general, which is how I think the law is intended to act.
Another example is: Kathy Sierra
Took about 5 minutes of googling.
Last edit: 2012-06-15 09:33:49 |
|
|
| JonnyBNoHo June 15 2012 09:42. Posts 2310 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 08:34 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 08:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On June 15 2012 07:41 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The law is about defamation (a well established legal term), not harassment.
Good luck ensuring it's used only in that way.
Why would I need good luck? There are legal requirements for something to be considered defamation. This law would not change those requirements.
There are no provisions to guarantee that the law would be used in such a way. You would have to be found guilty in a court of law for defamation before you are convicted, but this law would release your information before you are convicted. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Releasing your ID is not a conviction. It's the start of a legal process.
The right to privacy does not allow you to cover up a crime! Police can get search warrants before you are convicted. The warrent is not itself a conviction and your 'right to privacy' will not prevent the search from being carried out. |
|
|
 lorkac United States. June 15 2012 10:51. Posts 2297 | Profile Blog # |
On June 15 2012 09:10 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:01 lorkac wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:43 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
Because being harassed is subjective, it is decided by both a judge, a jury of your peers, and the two people in question sitting across each other. The law is there *because* it isn't obvious.
Try reading the actual law in question. It requires websites to release your private information simply because someone makes a request for it. If the law instead required a judge and jury to establish a finding of fact beforehand, then it wouldn't be nearly as problematic.
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
The reason it reeks of privilege is because only a privileged person would not realize the importance of laws whose only reason of existing is in protecting the citizens from attacks (physical or otherwise).
Only someone with a victim mentality considers subjective harms to be attacks. Privileged people in fact prefer protective laws, because those laws inevitably end up protecting those with privilege and hurting those without. For example, see how many laws meant to "protect citizens" inevitably end up disproportionately punishing minorities and people of low socioeconomic status.
like equal suffrage, civil rights, roe v wade, workers rights, minimum wage, child labor laws, etc...?
None of those laws are examples of an overreaching government compromising freedom in favor of security. A true comparable example would be the Patriot Act.
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:06 windsupernova wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:45 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:42 windsupernova wrote:
Your free speech ends where it starts affecting other peoples rights.
And how do Facebook wall posts (which you can block/delete) or a fake Facebook profile affect your rights?
Did you read all my post or only that part? Being accused of something as serious as paedophilia can ruin your life. Imagine: - Teachers facebook -Someone accuses him of abusing kids -No matter how quickly he deleted it its bound to have been read by someone -Rumour spreads -Parents find out about that, they go to higher powers -Guy can get fired and probably investigated by the Police -Guy will have to live with the taint of having been accused of that, he will probably have a hard time finding a job as a teacher. Believe it or not, rumors, can drastically affect someones life. And all for what? One guy gets his giggles? And no, nasty rumors are not only a high school thing they happen all the time in the professional world, politics and with very nasty consequences. Contrary to what many people believe the stuff that gets posted online can have real consequences on real people, for both right and wrong.
Sounds to me like the real problem is that we punish people without proof for certain types of accusations. Regardless, I find it extremely doubtful that someone could be fired on the basis of rumors alone, particularly if he can show that they stem from a fake website.
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:06 MoonfireSpam wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:45 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:42 windsupernova wrote:
Your free speech ends where it starts affecting other peoples rights.
And how do Facebook wall posts (which you can block/delete) or a fake Facebook profile affect your rights?
Probably when they start costing you your job, money, time, lifestyle and you have no way to defend yourself because some pricks have the "right" of being anonymous.
How does either of the above threaten your job, money, time, or lifestyle?
equal suffrage = Government telling people how to vote.
Civil rights = Telling the majority (whites at that time) how they could treat the minority
Civil rights literally changed both policy, building code, school code, the entire american system had to be turned upside down because minorities would just "take it"
roe v wade: legalized murdering children
workers rights: illegal to hire a subgroup
minimum wage: limits how much an employer can and cannot pay his employees
child labor laws: limits job opportunities for children,
etc...
We're okay with those laws because infringing on the rights and freedoms of some allows for the whole to be better. And yes, the Patriot Act is part of that as well. In fact, most laws are part of it. And there's also a reason why, despite having specific laws written down, we still have those accused be judged by peers and a judge and not just the written words of the law.
|
| | By the truth we are undone. Life is a dream. Tis waking that kills us. He who robs us of our dreams robs us of our life --Orlando: A Biography |
|
|
| sunprince United States. June 15 2012 19:59. Posts 2017 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 09:17 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:10 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 09:01 lorkac wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:43 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
Because being harassed is subjective, it is decided by both a judge, a jury of your peers, and the two people in question sitting across each other. The law is there *because* it isn't obvious.
Try reading the actual law in question. It requires websites to release your private information simply because someone makes a request for it. If the law instead required a judge and jury to establish a finding of fact beforehand, then it wouldn't be nearly as problematic.
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
The reason it reeks of privilege is because only a privileged person would not realize the importance of laws whose only reason of existing is in protecting the citizens from attacks (physical or otherwise).
Only someone with a victim mentality considers subjective harms to be attacks. Privileged people in fact prefer protective laws, because those laws inevitably end up protecting those with privilege and hurting those without. For example, see how many laws meant to "protect citizens" inevitably end up disproportionately punishing minorities and people of low socioeconomic status.
like equal suffrage, civil rights, roe v wade, workers rights, minimum wage, child labor laws, etc...?
None of those laws are examples of an overreaching government compromising freedom in favor of security. A true comparable example would be the Patriot Act.
On June 15 2012 09:06 MoonfireSpam wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:45 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:42 windsupernova wrote:
Your free speech ends where it starts affecting other peoples rights.
And how do Facebook wall posts (which you can block/delete) or a fake Facebook profile affect your rights?
Probably when they start costing you your job, money, time, lifestyle and you have no way to defend yourself because some pricks have the "right" of being anonymous.
How does either of the above threaten your job, money, time, or lifestyle?
"In October 2008, a rumor that Apple CEO Steve Jobs suffered a major heart attack circulated. Although the rumor would be proven false, its rapid transmission and initial adoption as fact by investors had substantial impact, resulting in a $9 billion market value loss." - http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2011/09/16/how-to-stop-rumors-before-they-ruin-your-brand/edit: Of course rumours and hearsay are just that, when they become published as fact (i.e. libel) and people eat it up, it can seriously fuck people up. I am of course not just talking about Facebook wall posts, but publishing stuff on the internet in general, which is how I think the law is intended to act. Another example is: Kathy Sierra
The woman in question is not a CEO, nor did she recieve death threats.
Again, how do Facebook wall posts (which you can block/delete) or a fake Facebook profile affect your rights?
Try actually answering my question this time, instead of giving irrelevant examples.
On June 15 2012 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 08:34 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On June 15 2012 07:41 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The law is about defamation (a well established legal term), not harassment.
Good luck ensuring it's used only in that way.
Why would I need good luck? There are legal requirements for something to be considered defamation. This law would not change those requirements.
There are no provisions to guarantee that the law would be used in such a way. You would have to be found guilty in a court of law for defamation before you are convicted, but this law would release your information before you are convicted. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Releasing your ID is not a conviction. It's the start of a legal process. The right to privacy does not allow you to cover up a crime! Police can get search warrants before you are convicted. The warrent is not itself a conviction and your 'right to privacy' will not prevent the search from being carried out.
You're missing the point, which is that your ID is released before you've been convicted. Thus, your right to privacy is violated without proof that you caused someone harm.Last edit: 2012-06-15 20:01:39 |
| |
|
| sunprince United States. June 15 2012 20:09. Posts 2017 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 10:51 lorkac wrote:
equal suffrage = Government telling people how to vote.
Civil rights = Telling the majority (whites at that time) how they could treat the minority
Civil rights literally changed both policy, building code, school code, the entire american system had to be turned upside down because minorities would just "take it"
roe v wade: legalized murdering children
workers rights: illegal to hire a subgroup
minimum wage: limits how much an employer can and cannot pay his employees
child labor laws: limits job opportunities for children,
Contrary your ridiculous interpretations, none of the above violates anyone's rights, and certainly none of them involve trading freedom for "security", which is what we were actually talking about. |
| |
|
| Griefer Australia. June 15 2012 21:20. Posts 128 | Profile # |
| "Stupid woman on the internet with skin as thick as paper fails to learn how to use a website she signed up for, more at 11 after we ruin the internet for everyone." |
|
|
| Griefer Australia. June 15 2012 21:26. Posts 128 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 09:17 MoonfireSpam wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:10 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 09:01 lorkac wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:43 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
Because being harassed is subjective, it is decided by both a judge, a jury of your peers, and the two people in question sitting across each other. The law is there *because* it isn't obvious.
Try reading the actual law in question. It requires websites to release your private information simply because someone makes a request for it. If the law instead required a judge and jury to establish a finding of fact beforehand, then it wouldn't be nearly as problematic.
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
The reason it reeks of privilege is because only a privileged person would not realize the importance of laws whose only reason of existing is in protecting the citizens from attacks (physical or otherwise).
Only someone with a victim mentality considers subjective harms to be attacks. Privileged people in fact prefer protective laws, because those laws inevitably end up protecting those with privilege and hurting those without. For example, see how many laws meant to "protect citizens" inevitably end up disproportionately punishing minorities and people of low socioeconomic status.
like equal suffrage, civil rights, roe v wade, workers rights, minimum wage, child labor laws, etc...?
None of those laws are examples of an overreaching government compromising freedom in favor of security. A true comparable example would be the Patriot Act.
On June 15 2012 09:06 MoonfireSpam wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:45 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:42 windsupernova wrote:
Your free speech ends where it starts affecting other peoples rights.
And how do Facebook wall posts (which you can block/delete) or a fake Facebook profile affect your rights?
Probably when they start costing you your job, money, time, lifestyle and you have no way to defend yourself because some pricks have the "right" of being anonymous.
How does either of the above threaten your job, money, time, or lifestyle?
"In October 2008, a rumor that Apple CEO Steve Jobs suffered a major heart attack circulated. Although the rumor would be proven false, its rapid transmission and initial adoption as fact by investors had substantial impact, resulting in a $9 billion market value loss." - http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2011/09/16/how-to-stop-rumors-before-they-ruin-your-brand/edit: Of course rumours and hearsay are just that, when they become published as fact (i.e. libel) and people eat it up, it can seriously fuck people up. I am of course not just talking about Facebook wall posts, but publishing stuff on the internet in general, which is how I think the law is intended to act. Another example is: Kathy SierraTook about 5 minutes of googling.
It's called gossip, and unless you want to start policing gossip you should probably give up and realise the internet is just another medium for people to interact.
People can send letters anonymously, should we request 10 points of ID from everyone who buys a stamp and then freely give out their information to anyone who claims to have recieved some naughty words from said person because their feelings were hurt?
I think this woman needs to grow up.
|
|
|
| Frigo Hungary. June 15 2012 23:01. Posts 980 | Profile # |
But... will government websites be forced to identify troll politicians?
|
| | http://www.fimfiction.net/user/Treasure_Chest |
|
|
| lorkac United States. June 15 2012 23:10. Posts 2297 | Profile Blog # |
On June 15 2012 20:09 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 10:51 lorkac wrote:
equal suffrage = Government telling people how to vote.
Civil rights = Telling the majority (whites at that time) how they could treat the minority
Civil rights literally changed both policy, building code, school code, the entire american system had to be turned upside down because minorities would just "take it"
roe v wade: legalized murdering children
workers rights: illegal to hire a subgroup
minimum wage: limits how much an employer can and cannot pay his employees
child labor laws: limits job opportunities for children,
Contrary your ridiculous interpretations, none of the above violates anyone's rights, and certainly none of them involve trading freedom for "security", which is what we were actually talking about.
One of those laws is literally (to some) the legalization of infanticide in order to make life easier for women. The reason abortion is such a hot button topic in the US is because those who are against it don't believe in government sanctioned murder.
Child labor laws are literally laws that restrict how much people can work and how employers hire their staff--for the sake of protecting children. That is the literal point of the law.
We as a society are okay with things like government sanctioned infanticide and employee/employer restrictions if the overall end result is desirable. Safer sex and safer kids.
This new law doesn't even do anything new since, if the suspects are doing something that is already illegal (such as libel), you could just give Facebook a warrant and you are now okay to take that information. This law simply makes that more explicit and allows the legal process to be streamlined. It has nothing to do exchanging freedoms for safety since its already something that the law can acquire. But even if it was about exchanging freedom for safety--we have those laws already and so long as it produces positive results we are okay with them.
|
| | By the truth we are undone. Life is a dream. Tis waking that kills us. He who robs us of our dreams robs us of our life --Orlando: A Biography |
|
|
| Ryder. June 15 2012 23:13. Posts 810 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 07:28 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 00:14 lorkac wrote:
On June 14 2012 12:46 sunprince wrote:
On June 14 2012 11:19 Deadeight wrote:
Fact is, people who are bullying and going after someone like in the OP should be caught quickly and easily, which is what this is for.
And what exactly constitutes "bullying"? Are we going to go after all the kids playing online games who call each other "fags" next? If you don't have thick enough skin to deal with random jerks on the Internet, then don't go on the Internet. Just like if you can't deal with random jerks in real life, you should just stay at home.
That is exactly what bullying is... At school they feel safe calling you a fag because their either bigger, have friends to help them, have cultural normatives encouraging them, etc... Online they feel safe calling you a fag because the Internet has no accountability.
Uhh, no. Anyone can anonymously call you a fag on the street with no reprecussions. There's no accountability anywhere except in institutions such as schools, and we don't try to change that because of the enormous reprecussions it would have on free speech. Ask China about this; they have the bleeding edge when it comes to policing information on the Internet.
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 00:14 lorkac wrote:
If, for example, facebook and the like needed you to enter things like a government sanctioned ID (drivers license, or passport, etc...) then it wouldn't matter how many scramblers and names you fake--the government ID would be what's chased.
Or a new law requiring Internet providers to provide an account specific ID that you need to use to access any website. Etc...
Would there be ways around it? Sure. Bu it's about accountability. If the Internet became les and less anonymous, people would be more careful of their actions simply because there is accountability.
People have a right to anonymous free speech. For the same reason that you have a right to write and send anonymous letters or publish writing anonymously, you have a right to engage in free speech over the Internet. The whole concept of Internet IDs is completely primitve bullshit pushed by newcomers to the Internet. It's pretty telling that the people who try to regulate the Internet are themselves web-illterate. This topic isn't new, it's just a new demographic (the least tech savvy people finally getting online) discovering the issues for the first time, and decided they want to grant themselves the right to not be offended by the freedom of ideas. It would be nice if newcomers would examine how these issues have already been discussed and why online anonymity was established as a principle early on in the Internet's development. The risk of being called a fag by Bieberfan42 are inconsequential compared to the risks posed by censorship. But as usual, people like you are going to advocate the destruction of our freedoms to "protect people".
Lol sure if somebody calls you a fag on the street there isn't much you can do about it (nor should you). But if somebody comes up to you and repeatedly harasses you, insults you and attempts to discredit your name repeatedly after you demand they stop, then YES there will be repercussions. Why should the internet be any different?Last edit: 2012-06-15 23:14:26 |
|
|
| lorkac United States. June 15 2012 23:16. Posts 2297 | Profile Blog # |
On June 15 2012 21:26 Griefer wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:17 MoonfireSpam wrote:
On June 15 2012 09:10 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 09:01 lorkac wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:43 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
Because being harassed is subjective, it is decided by both a judge, a jury of your peers, and the two people in question sitting across each other. The law is there *because* it isn't obvious.
Try reading the actual law in question. It requires websites to release your private information simply because someone makes a request for it. If the law instead required a judge and jury to establish a finding of fact beforehand, then it wouldn't be nearly as problematic.
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
The reason it reeks of privilege is because only a privileged person would not realize the importance of laws whose only reason of existing is in protecting the citizens from attacks (physical or otherwise).
Only someone with a victim mentality considers subjective harms to be attacks. Privileged people in fact prefer protective laws, because those laws inevitably end up protecting those with privilege and hurting those without. For example, see how many laws meant to "protect citizens" inevitably end up disproportionately punishing minorities and people of low socioeconomic status.
like equal suffrage, civil rights, roe v wade, workers rights, minimum wage, child labor laws, etc...?
None of those laws are examples of an overreaching government compromising freedom in favor of security. A true comparable example would be the Patriot Act.
On June 15 2012 09:06 MoonfireSpam wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:45 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:42 windsupernova wrote:
Your free speech ends where it starts affecting other peoples rights.
And how do Facebook wall posts (which you can block/delete) or a fake Facebook profile affect your rights?
Probably when they start costing you your job, money, time, lifestyle and you have no way to defend yourself because some pricks have the "right" of being anonymous.
How does either of the above threaten your job, money, time, or lifestyle?
"In October 2008, a rumor that Apple CEO Steve Jobs suffered a major heart attack circulated. Although the rumor would be proven false, its rapid transmission and initial adoption as fact by investors had substantial impact, resulting in a $9 billion market value loss." - http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2011/09/16/how-to-stop-rumors-before-they-ruin-your-brand/edit: Of course rumours and hearsay are just that, when they become published as fact (i.e. libel) and people eat it up, it can seriously fuck people up. I am of course not just talking about Facebook wall posts, but publishing stuff on the internet in general, which is how I think the law is intended to act. Another example is: Kathy SierraTook about 5 minutes of googling.
It's called gossip, and unless you want to start policing gossip you should probably give up and realise the internet is just another medium for people to interact. People can send letters anonymously, should we request 10 points of ID from everyone who buys a stamp and then freely give out their information to anyone who claims to have recieved some naughty words from said person because their feelings were hurt? I think this woman needs to grow up.
Its called libel laws. Laws of this kind have existed longer than a lot of countries have existed. And unlike most TL posters, judges and lawyers rarely mistake the difference between a libel case and a teasing case.
Libel is illegal. In all forms.
Libel is a serious issue, it is not taken lightly.
Libel in the internet is taken as seriously as libel in real life.
This is because libel is taken seriously--especially in Europe.
Or do you think that teasing only counts if a corporation is teased and not if a normal human being is teased? |
| | By the truth we are undone. Life is a dream. Tis waking that kills us. He who robs us of our dreams robs us of our life --Orlando: A Biography |
|
|
| lorkac United States. June 15 2012 23:18. Posts 2297 | Profile Blog # |
On June 15 2012 23:01 Frigo wrote:
But... will government websites be forced to identify troll politicians?
If this law gets passed, and the politician has a website, I think you can legally request information from the owners of the website if you have a case against people within that website.
Webception |
| | By the truth we are undone. Life is a dream. Tis waking that kills us. He who robs us of our dreams robs us of our life --Orlando: A Biography |
|
|
| unteqair United States. June 15 2012 23:27. Posts 261 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 23:16 lorkac wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 21:26 Griefer wrote:
On June 15 2012 09:17 MoonfireSpam wrote:
On June 15 2012 09:10 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 09:01 lorkac wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:43 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
Because being harassed is subjective, it is decided by both a judge, a jury of your peers, and the two people in question sitting across each other. The law is there *because* it isn't obvious.
Try reading the actual law in question. It requires websites to release your private information simply because someone makes a request for it. If the law instead required a judge and jury to establish a finding of fact beforehand, then it wouldn't be nearly as problematic.
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
The reason it reeks of privilege is because only a privileged person would not realize the importance of laws whose only reason of existing is in protecting the citizens from attacks (physical or otherwise).
Only someone with a victim mentality considers subjective harms to be attacks. Privileged people in fact prefer protective laws, because those laws inevitably end up protecting those with privilege and hurting those without. For example, see how many laws meant to "protect citizens" inevitably end up disproportionately punishing minorities and people of low socioeconomic status.
like equal suffrage, civil rights, roe v wade, workers rights, minimum wage, child labor laws, etc...?
None of those laws are examples of an overreaching government compromising freedom in favor of security. A true comparable example would be the Patriot Act.
On June 15 2012 09:06 MoonfireSpam wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:45 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:42 windsupernova wrote:
Your free speech ends where it starts affecting other peoples rights.
And how do Facebook wall posts (which you can block/delete) or a fake Facebook profile affect your rights?
Probably when they start costing you your job, money, time, lifestyle and you have no way to defend yourself because some pricks have the "right" of being anonymous.
How does either of the above threaten your job, money, time, or lifestyle?
"In October 2008, a rumor that Apple CEO Steve Jobs suffered a major heart attack circulated. Although the rumor would be proven false, its rapid transmission and initial adoption as fact by investors had substantial impact, resulting in a $9 billion market value loss." - http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2011/09/16/how-to-stop-rumors-before-they-ruin-your-brand/edit: Of course rumours and hearsay are just that, when they become published as fact (i.e. libel) and people eat it up, it can seriously fuck people up. I am of course not just talking about Facebook wall posts, but publishing stuff on the internet in general, which is how I think the law is intended to act. Another example is: Kathy SierraTook about 5 minutes of googling.
It's called gossip, and unless you want to start policing gossip you should probably give up and realise the internet is just another medium for people to interact. People can send letters anonymously, should we request 10 points of ID from everyone who buys a stamp and then freely give out their information to anyone who claims to have recieved some naughty words from said person because their feelings were hurt? I think this woman needs to grow up.
Its called libel laws. Laws of this kind have existed longer than a lot of countries have existed. And unlike most TL posters, judges and lawyers rarely mistake the difference between a libel case and a teasing case. Libel is illegal. In all forms. Libel is a serious issue, it is not taken lightly. Libel in the internet is taken as seriously as libel in real life. This is because libel is taken seriously--especially in Europe. Or do you think that teasing only counts if a corporation is teased and not if a normal human being is teased?
People should distinguish between ruining someone's real life reputation or business from "trolling" on the internet. It's not the same. It has very little to do with whether you have thick or thin skin.
|
|
|
| JonnyBNoHo June 16 2012 01:57. Posts 2310 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 19:59 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:34 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On June 15 2012 07:41 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The law is about defamation (a well established legal term), not harassment.
Good luck ensuring it's used only in that way.
Why would I need good luck? There are legal requirements for something to be considered defamation. This law would not change those requirements.
There are no provisions to guarantee that the law would be used in such a way. You would have to be found guilty in a court of law for defamation before you are convicted, but this law would release your information before you are convicted. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Releasing your ID is not a conviction. It's the start of a legal process. The right to privacy does not allow you to cover up a crime! Police can get search warrants before you are convicted. The warrent is not itself a conviction and your 'right to privacy' will not prevent the search from being carried out.
You're missing the point, which is that your ID is released before you've been convicted. Thus, your right to privacy is violated without proof that you caused someone harm.
Yes but why is that a problem?
A victim demonstrates that they have been defamed and suffered for it in a court of law. They then get the ID to seek compensation and the defendant can defend his or herself.
How would you only release the ID after judgement while still giving the defendant a chance to defend his or herself?
|
|
|
| MoonfireSpam United Kingdom. June 16 2012 03:25. Posts 640 | Profile Blog # |
On June 15 2012 19:59 sunprince wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:17 MoonfireSpam wrote:
On June 15 2012 09:10 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 09:01 lorkac wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:43 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
Because being harassed is subjective, it is decided by both a judge, a jury of your peers, and the two people in question sitting across each other. The law is there *because* it isn't obvious.
Try reading the actual law in question. It requires websites to release your private information simply because someone makes a request for it. If the law instead required a judge and jury to establish a finding of fact beforehand, then it wouldn't be nearly as problematic.
On June 15 2012 08:36 lorkac wrote:
The reason it reeks of privilege is because only a privileged person would not realize the importance of laws whose only reason of existing is in protecting the citizens from attacks (physical or otherwise).
Only someone with a victim mentality considers subjective harms to be attacks. Privileged people in fact prefer protective laws, because those laws inevitably end up protecting those with privilege and hurting those without. For example, see how many laws meant to "protect citizens" inevitably end up disproportionately punishing minorities and people of low socioeconomic status.
like equal suffrage, civil rights, roe v wade, workers rights, minimum wage, child labor laws, etc...?
None of those laws are examples of an overreaching government compromising freedom in favor of security. A true comparable example would be the Patriot Act.
On June 15 2012 09:06 MoonfireSpam wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:45 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:42 windsupernova wrote:
Your free speech ends where it starts affecting other peoples rights.
And how do Facebook wall posts (which you can block/delete) or a fake Facebook profile affect your rights?
Probably when they start costing you your job, money, time, lifestyle and you have no way to defend yourself because some pricks have the "right" of being anonymous.
How does either of the above threaten your job, money, time, or lifestyle?
"In October 2008, a rumor that Apple CEO Steve Jobs suffered a major heart attack circulated. Although the rumor would be proven false, its rapid transmission and initial adoption as fact by investors had substantial impact, resulting in a $9 billion market value loss." - http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2011/09/16/how-to-stop-rumors-before-they-ruin-your-brand/edit: Of course rumours and hearsay are just that, when they become published as fact (i.e. libel) and people eat it up, it can seriously fuck people up. I am of course not just talking about Facebook wall posts, but publishing stuff on the internet in general, which is how I think the law is intended to act. Another example is: Kathy Sierra
The woman in question is not a CEO, nor did she recieve death threats. Again, how do Facebook wall posts (which you can block/delete) or a fake Facebook profile affect your rights? Try actually answering my question this time, instead of giving irrelevant examples.
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 09:42 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:34 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 08:20 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On June 15 2012 07:41 sunprince wrote:
On June 15 2012 07:36 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
The law is about defamation (a well established legal term), not harassment.
Good luck ensuring it's used only in that way.
Why would I need good luck? There are legal requirements for something to be considered defamation. This law would not change those requirements.
There are no provisions to guarantee that the law would be used in such a way. You would have to be found guilty in a court of law for defamation before you are convicted, but this law would release your information before you are convicted. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Releasing your ID is not a conviction. It's the start of a legal process. The right to privacy does not allow you to cover up a crime! Police can get search warrants before you are convicted. The warrent is not itself a conviction and your 'right to privacy' will not prevent the search from being carried out.
You're missing the point, which is that your ID is released before you've been convicted. Thus, your right to privacy is violated without proof that you caused someone harm.
Lets break this down into miniscule points:
1. The BBC link says "all websites" therefore using Facebook only examples as defending privacy is pointless. It applies to all forms of written media over the webs as far as I can tell
2. Since you lack the imagination to extrapolate those examples into internet posts or facebook activity. I will do it for you:
You are a teacher. Someone goes after you big time and makes posts in your name and/or fake accusations against you say of molesting children. School would be forced to investigate, further slurring your rep. It goes viral and in your community, your name is mud.
I am wanting to ruin someones trade value. I make a load of twitter/facebook and random posts starting all sorts of bad about the company from profit warnings to missing targets.
You are a doctor. A colleague goes on a smear campaign, pretending to be patients lodging fake complaints, you are suspended by the GMC while you are investigated, lost time, lost rep, potentially lost money.
I am your wife. I decide to be a bitch, accuse you of adultery to help push a divorce through etc. I fabricate a mistress based on your working hours and knowing about your habits and lifestyle.
All of these examples, as long as they are not written are hearsay/rumour and totally legal. The second they go into print and falsehoods are stated as fact, it is potentially libel
These above examples totally affect your rights because in your world, anyone on the internet can do any of the above and never be held accountable. I think people have the right to face who is accusing them of crimes, and fucking clean them out if it is malicious. I think you don't believe this happens and think it is something people sweep away in seconds then I think you are terribly naive.
Freedom is not the right to carry out criminal activity without consequence, and neither should anyone have the right to act this way.
I have yet to hear anything from you other than "I have the right to say what I want about who I want and not be held accountable for it"
End.
Last edit: 2012-06-16 03:36:13 |
|
|
 MasterOfChaos Germany. June 17 2012 07:54. Posts 2896 | Profile Blog # |
| It's useless against any serious offender, it only works against careless people. Those who know that they're doing something illegal can simply go through the 15 mins of work and slower connection required for anonymity (use TOR and register a throw away email at yahoo or something). But those serious offenders are those used to justify such laws. All these "give me the user's IP" laws only serve against careless offenders, typically those who overstepped the bounds of libel without noticing. |
| | One eye to kill. Two eyes to live. | |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 All | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
