Slashdot Mirror
Defamation, Free Speech, Jurisdiction and the Net?
An anonymous reader asks: "I'm writing a legal article on jurisdiction and defamation via the web. There seems to be a trend in various national courts (eg the UK, Australia, Malaysia) to treat the place where a web-page is *read* (ie browsed) as the place of publication of its contents, regardless of where the page or the server serving it are located. This has far-reaching ramifications, as it opens up anyone publishing anything on a web-site (and also Usenet)
in America to the more restrictive domestic laws of other countries -- not just for slander/libel/defamation, but also treason, lese-majestie, hate speech and general censorship laws (think Yahoo and France). Does anyone have personal, practical experience of being threatened by foreign governments or government bodies for material put up on the Net? Or is it just an inevitable consequence, to be overcome by geographical tagging of a browser's location (think icravetv.com) or similar measures?"
"Many people assert that informed Netizens see this as a way of fragmenting the Net, of imposing geographic boundaries and destroying part of the fundamental location-agnostic nature of the web and the Net -- ie, that it's a Bad Thing. Is this really so? Does anyone see this as a good, or at least a neutral, thing?"
You said all these things and, yet, you proved
;-)
by your writing that you know a lot about slashdot... you seem to be a regular reader.
So, what is this post all about? I believe it
is very likely that you are just begging
for some attention... am I right? You are
one of these folks that want to impress everyone
by your wonderful capacity to spell.
Congratulations, pal. Keep up the good work
What is an "USian"?
Are you perchance referring to an "American"? Unfortunately for you, English is the accepted standard for the internet. Additionally, it is the language chosen for this website.
In the future, please us real English words. Your choice as to use British or American spellings, and I really do not care if you combine the two. Keep made up words to your website.
Just a Tuna in the Sea of Life
And yet, you still avoid try to support your position with facts just the sad old state-ist rhetoric which was disproved hundreds of years ago when people started to become enlightened and understand the concept of Freedom.
This is basically how this conversation has gone so far:
Me: I believe people should be Free.
You: I believe that if 50.001% of the population believes it's okay to murder black people, it's okay to murder black people, and if you think it's wrong to murder black people, you're evil for trying to usurp the will of the majority.
Me: You're wrong. *refutes every one of your points*
You: LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU
Me: *proves you wrong, again*
You: U SUK U SUK U SUK U SUK U SUK
Me: *uses evidence and logic to disprove everything you said (which was very little beyond "U SUK HA HA HA") and prove that I'm right and that you're a danger to society*
You: NAH NAH U R STUPID D00D HA HA HA HA HA
Me: *asks you a series of questions which prove you're an idiot*
You: *refuses to answer my questions because you know they'll make you look like an idiot*
Me: Do you have ANY grasp on the concept of logic?
You: Me no what u say? Hoo u? Huh?
Me: That's what I thought.
If you ever decide to stop ranting like a moron and try to answer my logic and facts with some logic and facts of your own, give me a call. Until then, in case you're wondering why the world treats you like a child, it's because you act like a child. Maybe if you ever learn to behave like an adult, someday someone somewhere may have half an ounce of respect for you.
Doubtful, though.
I'm going to follow through with my promise.
QUESTION 1: Nazi Germany was a Democratic government whose actions were determined by a mandate of the people (majority rule). The majority of the German people at the time decided Democratically to launch a program of terror and murder against everyone not in the majority -- a program that left over ten million people dead. Given that you have stated you do not acknoweldge a concept of universal human rights, but acknowledge "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of governmental authority, do you accept the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, or do you condemn the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, and thus renounce your belief in "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of government authority?
Please respond with one of the following:
1. "I, an anonymous Slashdot poster using the pseduonym 'Courageous', maintain my belief in 'the will of the people' as the only legitimate source of governmental authority, and I accept and support the ten million murders performed by the Democratic government of Nazi Germany. I refuse to acknowledge that universal human rights exist, and thus I maintain that any actions performed by a government, including torture and murder, are moral and acceptable as long as those actions are approved by a plurality of the governed."
-OR-
2. "I, an anonymous Slashdot poster using the pseudonym 'Courageous', condemn the ten million murders performed by the Democratic government of Nazi Germany, and renounce my previous beliefs that 'the will of the people' is the only legitimate source of governmental authority. I now choose to acknowledge that universal human rights do exist, and that 'majority rule' is only good when it is not allowed to violate those universal human rights. Further, I apologize for my previous rude behavior and most of all for keeping my new friend Gendou up until 4AM telling me how wrong I was."
If you respond in any manner other than by answering the question, I'll just ask you the question again, and again, and again, until you either choose to answer it or get bored with the entire bloody mess and stop replying.
(And about the moderations, that was one single person who hates the Liberty concept spending a full set of 5 moderator points mod-bombing me. I e-mail CmdrTaco about the abuse and he replied saying he's removed the user's ability to ever moderate again.)
Once again, I've already refuted every point you've tried to offer (if there any I haven't refuted yet, please let me know, until then you're not giving me much new material), and rather than admitting you've lost you insist on acting like a child saying "Nah nah nah, I'm going to have the last word."
And you, of course, still refuse to answer the question with a yes or a no.
So I follow through on my promise. One more time.
QUESTION 1: Nazi Germany was a Democratic government whose actions were determined by a mandate of the people (majority rule). The majority of the German people at the time decided Democratically to launch a program of terror and murder against everyone not in the majority -- a program that left over ten million people dead. Given that you have stated you do not acknoweldge a concept of universal human rights, but acknowledge "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of governmental authority, do you accept the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, or do you condemn the Democratically-mandated murders perpetuated by Nazi Germany, and thus renounce your belief in "the will of the people" as the only legitimate source of government authority?
I think you're afraid of what your answer would be. You know at this point (at least on a subconscious level) that either you're a Nazi-supporter or all your political beliefs are wrong. You don't want to admit either of those, so you try to find a way out for yourself where there is none.
I don't know why you hate me so much or why I hate you so much. It seems a bit silly to me. The problem seems to be that you're around ~70% Libertarian and I'm somewhere between 80% and 95% Libertarian depending on what kind of mood I'm in on a given day. A difference of as little as ~10% doesn't really seem like grounds for an eternal flamefest to me, that's why I think the whole affair is pretty stupid.