Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Web Commenter Will Be Unmasked To Mom
LegalReader writes "An Illinois judge has decided that an anonymous commenter on a newspaper website will be unmasked, even though the mother of a teen about whom 'Hipcheck16' allegedly made 'deeply disturbing' comments hasn't yet decided whether to sue over the posting."
One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for protection from the powerful. The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions, or when a person with a public position needs to be able to express a view not representative of their public persona - as when, for instance, a politician wishes to contribute to a rational debate on drugs or abortion in a way that is not in accordance with the opinions of Rupert Murdoch. Civil society does not convey to teenagers an automatic right to post offensive, anonymous graffiti and that needs to be clearly understood.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Story posted between 2am and 5am in the continental US. Can we have something less US-centric at this time of day?
Nobody deserves anonymous abuse unless it is a matter of serious public concern. Assuming that your statement is correct, if the kid is already a "mommas boy" then online bullying would only make things worse. And in your post you have clearly identified yourself as a supporter of online bullying of the less socially able ("deserved"). Consider what this says about you, because it isn't very nice.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
from her website, she's generally anti-freedom
opposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds
opposes freedom to use "dangerous pesticides" to kill mosquitoes
opposes freedom to use marijuana
and, from her actions, seems like she's kind of opposed to free speech. However, most telling are the comments in the local newspaper about her endorsement http://www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/?id=280060
What a bitch
For what it's worth, "hip check" is a roller derby term.
From comments on some random website: There is no case, therefore no reason to reveal ID. Trib said after her son asked Hipcheck16 to debate in person, Hipcheck16 asked her son if he frequently invites guys fron the internet over. A perfectly valid question. It could have been meant to make son more cautious in general. Good advice in the form of a rhetorical question.
But I have no verification if that's correct, and if it is, whether it's the whole story.
What does "deserved" mean? Did the boy in question do something that merited a punishment or is he simply guilty for being different or not part of the in crowd in some way.
I would like more details of the case, but harrassment, whether online or offline is not merited and to give would-be vigilantes license to act as judge and jury to decide in place of one is stupid.
What I find hard to believe is that is that the person who made the comments has any balls at all considering they went all the way to court to protect their identity, rather than say it to a person's face. Are there a place for anonymous comments? Yes, defitely, to fight a system mostly. For bullying or harrassment? No.
... that theres really no such thing as anonymity online. If someone wants to find out who you are then eventually they will. Which obviously is a double edged sword - if its someone protesting against an oppressive government or suchlike then anonymity is prized , however if its some spiteful little teen using it to fire unpleasent potshots at people he/she doesn't like then I suspect most people will care little if their identity is revealed and most will probably be quite happy with that decision.
the 'system' just might consider one who fights it a 'bullying harrasser.'
Your freedom ends where the freedom of others begin. If you want to smoke marijuana please go ahead. That won't harm me in any way. But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me or want to spread dangerous pesticides on the environment, that's not only YOUR freedom on the table.
Here's some hot news for the rest of the world.
"Britons are among the ugliest people in the world, according to a controversial website that only allows 'beautiful' people to join.
Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted, reports the Daily Telegraph."
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_3557668.html?menu=
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
Are there a place for anonymous comments? Yes, defitely, to fight a system mostly. For bullying or harrassment? No.
Who decides what is "bullying" or "harrassment?" One person's "harrassment" might be someone else's "fighting the system." Who decides this? You? Me? Well, me, of course.
Regardless, its not a question of freedom, its a question of public health. It might be a stupid public health answer, but it goes through the right channels.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
I'd comment, but then she'll get ME too.
yes cool.
On the internet isn't going to end well...
goddammit the woman is a politician - her issue is really about defamation & political reputation. - The trouble started when son defended his mom against some criticisms by hipcheck16. This is bad news for people who like to indulge in random uncensored political commentary. And as for us regular slobs who have no reputation to damage - we have to cop the crap without recourse to suing or whatever.
On all those situations you or your car will probably be video'd on CCTV or seen by someone and couple that with the time that you did whatever it was you'll be found pretty quick.
Regardless, its not a question of freedom, its a question of public health. It might be a stupid public health answer, but it goes through the right channels.
Public health oncerns are generally overbroad, politically targetted, and regularly exaggerated.
I'd suggest it's up to the individual to decide whether second hand smoke from someone smoking pot should characterised as objectionable, welcome, or somewhere in between (as in "Dude, it's only 8:00 in the morning").
Your freedom ends where the freedom of others begin. If you want to smoke marijuana please go ahead. That won't harm me in any way. But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me or want to spread dangerous pesticides on the environment, that's not only YOUR freedom on the table.
You have it a little backwards in my opinion. Dangerous dogs can be controlled by their keepers, that should not be legislated. Pesticides are necessary to avoid the spread of malaria and other rather unpleasant diseases, they should not be legislated against. Marijuana is the only one that is sure to cause greater societal suffering as can you imagine the number of driving related deaths caused if it became legal? Never mind the wider societal damage caused through throngs of stoners being less than productive members of society. If someones life is so terrible that they _require_ a substance to ease the pain then they need psychological help not the legalization of a drug that provides a temporary solution.
MOMMA
now sue me!
pff
all i want to do is eat meat and have sex like a rabbit.
I live in Amsterdam since 6 years, and I can tell you: marijuana smells pretty badly. So, I don't care about the substance, but regulating acceptable "smell levels" would not be a bad thing :-)
You really should click more...
Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?"
The post then continues with references to the boy's "mommy," saying that statements made by her son may cause her political problems after her election, according to court records.
Stone said the comments crossed the line.
"I would like to hear the explanation for the innocent part of that," she said. "There was no joke, there was no punch line."
Stephen Tyma, an attorney representing Stone, said First Amendment protections were designed to shield anonymity in political debate, but not in what he characterized as sexual insinuations about children.
Looks like a fit case for an apology by 'hipcheck' - if he did _not_ know the child was a minor
If he _did_ know Stone's son was a minor, knowingly making lewd insinuations to a child is illegal and he deserves a visit from that process server.
I'd personally say that that this is a door that should neither be fully opened nor fully closed by law in and of itself; but rather, decided on a case-by-case basis with other, more established legal precedents and laws being the deciding factors.
In this case, TFA doesn't get into the specific nature of the comments made; I see that some enterprising commenters have found additional details, but we still don't have the fullest possible context to this story. There could be additional comments that were libelous, or simply hateful and abusive. In the US (your jurisdiction may vary) there is a certain additional protection in these situations afforded to persons who are not public figures. (In other words, if the article or story being commented on was ABOUT the teen in question, the level of protection is lesser; on the other hand, if the teen in question was not the subject of the piece, then the level of protection granted is somewhat greater.)
In short, the internet is not, nor should it be, an open-ended platform to abuse people for no reason other than a desire to abuse. By the same token, where there is a clear public interest in commentary concerning public figures that may or may not be deemed "abusive" to the supporters of those figures, the protections for anonymous commenters should be protected to the fullest extent of the law.
All that said, if the nature of the comments could be boiled down to "Hey don't attack my mom" followed by "you're an idiot", then if I were the judge, I'd have to err on the side of protecting free speech and privacy rights. If we have the full context here, this is not a question that deserves to have a federal case made of it.
But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me or want to spread dangerous pesticides on the environment, that's not only YOUR freedom on the table.
There are many things that are dangerous in this world. Cars, for instance, are numerous times more dangerous to me than any dog, and I speak as someone who has been attacked by a large and dangerous dog as a child. I would never call for a ban on either of those, but they do not necessarily invade the rights of others. Pesticides, too, can perhaps be used in a way that doesn't cause all of those nasty chemicals to pollute someone else's property. Until it crosses the border from one person's property to the next, it's OK in my book.
SSC
I won't argue about the pesticide thing, because that is inherently impossible to contain except in quantities too small to matter. On the other matter, though... you want to ban breeds of dogs because they can attack people? That's just as stupid as banning some kinds of guns because they look scary. What an idiot.
...and other overly litigious organizations.
It may seem like this is off topic but look at how organizations like this operate.
If a legal precedent comes along that allows people to get a judicial hearing to strip the anonymity of people without a proper criminal or civil trial then these organizations and people will be able to get the identity of anybody that criticizes them.
And as we've seen with Scientology once they know who you are they can harass you into shutting up.
This is not a good thing.
Posting anonymously for several damn good reasons.
The fact that this is a politician stifling anonymous speech makes this decision even more egregious.
This type of speech is SPECIFICALLY what the first amendment was written and added to the constitution to protect!
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
One person's "harrassment" might be someone else's "fighting the system."
A fifteen year-old child is not part of The System, so this is clearly harassment. There are different standards for public discourse against celebrities/politicians and private citizens/minors, as there should be.
And in no circumstance does "Freedom of Speech" equate to "Freedom of Anonymous Speech." Don't be lulled into a false sense of security by the proliferance of User IDs in lieu of real names. The day is coming when the US Government will subpoena the logs and UID databases of Slashdot, and at that time Slashdot's owners will fold in like an origami swan.
Is it fair to say that the internet would be quite a bit more polite if you had to publicly stand by your statements just as if you were standing on your soap-box in the town square?
It appears to me that one of the major problems with today's society is the near complete absence of common courtesy. I understand the need for anonymity in certain situations. I also feel that public discourse would be far better off if you knew you may have to publicly acknowledge and back-up your statements.
Where does the middle-ground lie between anonymity and personal responsibility? For now it appears that is determined, case-by-case, in the courts. Regardless of the outcome of this particular case, the web will remain troll-ridden. If that's a victory for free-speech, it's not a very satisfying one.
But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me
I don't want you walking around with a dangerous tool of rape tucked in your trousers. You could rape me any time!
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Her son got into a flame war with a guy on the internet so of course a lawsuit has to happen and someone has to be given money because some how that will make everything ok.
It's needless to say this guy should not have to reveal his name. It's stories like this that really make me sick of it all.
As far as I know, hepcheck16 made a joke about this lady's son being gay and screwing old men he meets on the internet. This lady then overreacted, decided to pretend she was fighting for some cause greater than herself, and here we are today.
For more info: http://randazza.wordpress.com/
Dude, you shouldn't be afraid of me, I'm harmless.
But I see lots of ghetto scum walking around with aggressive pitbulls that they use to look bad, threaten people and even to mug people. We are talking about dogs trained and used EXPLICITLY as weapons. Maybe something should be done about it, no?
You're right about the dangerous pesticides.
You're wrong about dangerous dog breads.
As long as they obey leash laws the bread shouldn't matter. If you trespass into their fenced yard, and are bitten, that is your fault.
> Did the judge consider the possibility that the boy in question might be a momma's boy and deserved the online abuse?
Hmm that reminds me of when I did Jury service some years back. It was a GBH case and one of the jurors said "To be honest if the victim was as annoying that night as he was in court today, he was probably asking for a slap - but that doesn't mean they should have done it"
Lewd? I see no lewd insinuations at all in the above quote. Read it carefully, and avoid projecting your own lewdness on to the sentence.
Yes, it can make a reference to sex. As it can to underage drinking, running away from mom, sedition, playing with legos, and a whole lot of other things. The poster only set up an entrapment for your lewd mind, and succeeded.
I think one has to be seriously oversexed or repressed to see a sexual reference where there is none.
Which, perhaps, tells us plenty about the situation here in the US today. Many people will actively look for "lewdness" under every rock, because that's where their repressed minds go.
from her website, she's generally anti-freedom
opposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds opposes freedom to use "dangerous pesticides" to kill mosquitoes opposes freedom to use marijuana
and, from her actions, seems like she's kind of opposed to free speech. However, most telling are the comments in the local newspaper about her endorsement http://www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/?id=280060
What a bitch
This post is a good example of the "Appeal to motive" fallacy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_motive
The AC's argument basically boils down to saying "This woman has wrong beliefs about Issues A, B, and C because of her bad philosophy, and therefore her belief about Issue D must also be wrong. Move along now."
How exactly do you propose to define which dogs are 'dangerous'? If you think that a 'breed' of dogs is inherently dangerous, think again. What makes dogs dangerous more than anything is abuse.
So you won't mind me moving my pet grizzly bear that I've trained to be as aggressive as possible into the backyard next to yours then?
He's harmless, really, an absolute teddy bear and I *promise* he wont knock down your fence and tear you limb from limb as soon as you walk out the back of your house. He absolutely respects your high minded property rights being an animal and all.
Generally when dogs like that "cross the border from one persons property to the next" they maul some poor kid, another animal, etc. There are many animals banned from inside city limits, why should certain breeds of dogs which statistically are now the most dangerous animals to humans on the entire planet be exempt?
I'll do a deal though, you get to keep your savage dog in the city if I get to keep my grizzly bear as well.
That's why you have to balance personal freedoms. Since state-sponsored genital mutilation is greater imposition on freedom than being raped (yes, it's traumatic, but if you had a choice between being raped and being mutilated you'd probably choose being raped), that's not reasonable.
I am officially gone from
I feel a lot of scum being abusive and rude to women, threatening to rape them as well.
I have two rottweilers. They are spoilt rotten sweet couch potatoes. If a thief broke into our house they would LICK him to death. They've been brought up with a lot of love and they don't have a clue what aggression is. But despite that they are OMG ROTTWEILERS TAKE THESE MURDERER DOGS AWAY FROM ME!
Maybe we should tackle the actual problem, not the overgeneralization?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
GP said:
opposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds
Note the quotes around "vicious"? That's because breeds are not inherently vicious, individuals are. Banning certain breeds is neither necessary to eliminate all dangerous dogs (because within any dog breed, there will be well-behaved, friendly dogs), nor is it sufficient (because within any dog breed, there will be mistreated, dangerous dogs). If you speak to a knowledgeable dog owner or breeder, they will tell you that upbringing and environment matters far more than genetics in determining whether a dog will be dangerous/vicious. If you ban certain breeds, you'll be needlessly banning many friendly dogs, and you won't be addressing dangerous dogs of other breeds. If you want to legislate your freedom against dangerous dogs, use a sensible definition of "dangerous", rather than an arbitrary one such as "dogs of the following breeds: ..." If a dog attacks someone without reasonable provocation (as determined by a criminal court), have the dog euthanized, fine the owner, even jail the owner if it can be shown that the owner was responsible due to deliberate actions or gross negligence. In severe cases where an owner is a repeat offender, maybe even prohibit that person from ever owning or being responsible for a dog again. But ban a breed just because the misinformed public believes they are more likely to be vicious? No.
Just to pre-empt some of the expected rebuttals, yes certain dog breeds are responsible for a greater share of dog attacks than others, even after controlling for the number of such dogs in a given area. But banning those breeds won't solve the problem, or even alleviate it in a meaningful way for more than a year or two (time enough for people to acquire another puppy and then train/abuse it into becoming dangerous). Repeat after me: correlation is not causation. The reason those dogs are involved in more attacks is -- get this -- because people think they are more vicious! If you were the sort of person who wants to have a vicious guard dog (which you won't train properly, or might even abuse in order to encourage viciousness), you're going to want a dog that will be perceived by others as big, strong, and dangerous, because that makes a more effective guard dog. It doesn't matter if the dog has any tendency towards viciousness or not, if the dog is anything less than perfectly trusting of strangers, you can make the dog vicious. And then that breed will have more than its fair share of vicious dogs, not because the breed trends that way inherently, but because people who want a vicious dog trend towards buying those breeds! If you ban that breed, it won't stop them from getting a dog and making it dangerous, they'll just do it with a different breed with appropriate characteristics (physically strong, reasonably or highly intelligent, having a strong pack/family sense, and a tendency to be protective of their pack/family -- all positive characteristics in a properly-trained dog). Of course, if enough people pick the same breeds based on those characteristics, then those breeds will gain a reputation for being vicious and get added to the list of banned breeds, rinse, repeat.
As long as we apply the same to perfume, deodorant and aftershave all of which can actually make me dry-heave it stuck next to the person on public transport or happen to take a breath while in proximity of them.
We would also have to regulate how much alcohol can be consumed while in a social grouping - I can smell the vodka sweat of even a mildly drunk person within about 6ft.
Or we could just learn to deal with the fact that people do things we don't like and to get the hell over ourselves?
If he would actually be anonymous, you would not be able to "unmask" (what in unprofessional term) him!
That's the freakin' definition of the term!!
He was perhaps "masked". But his real identity was still known to the site. Which means the commenter was pretty stupid in the first place.
Also this explains, why they can know who his mom is, when he's supposed to be "anonymous". (Try finding the mom of the Anonymous Coward. :P)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Daily Herald comments from 6 April:
And another:
When I think of abuse that people give out in public - no, I don't.
The Internet at least levels the playing field. In public, people can be intimidating, and that's backed up with the fear of violence, so that other people are scared to even respond.
I also feel that public discourse would be far better off if you knew you may have to publicly acknowledge and back-up your statements.
Right, you first: back up your statement that "one of the major problems with today's society is the near complete absence of common courtesy".
I asume you realise your anti-pot stance can be rpelaced with "alchohol", a legal substance - those problems exist with any drug. It is an iirational argument
Or how about make it illegal to drive while under the influence? Oh wait, driving while incapable already IS illegal
Just because something is legal doesnt mean you cannot legislate usage, or have treatment programmes for people who abuse the substance. Why punish the majority who can use a substance safely for the sake of a minority?
There is probably no drug more damaging to society than alcohol and perhaps the biggest killer on the roads is a drunk behind the wheel.
The type of person prepared to drive while stoned is pretty much the same as the type that will drive while drunk.
One thing that is worth thinking about is the violence that occurs every friday and saturday night on the streets of our cities by drunks and the wives battered by drunken husbands and boyfriends.
In contrast people who use too much cannabis fall asleep.
The idea that people who use cannabis can not hold down a job and be successful is laughable, some people will choose to do nothing but get stoned all day but most people have other things to do.
There already exists people who don't give a damn and get stoned all day regardless of cannabis 's legal status.
legalization would perhaps increase the numbers who would use it in moderation and at appropriate times. The people who don't give a damn are already smoking.
Perhaps the biggest losers if cannabis was legalized would be the drinks companies, health wise you may well see an improvement cannabis use doesn't involve taking in huge amounts of calories, its not called a beer gut for nothing.
For me smoking is a bad idea so i'd be best to brew tea instead, and my blood sugars would be better controlled and my triglycerides lowered by avoiding alcohol.
Cannabis is noted for its medicinal qualities and certainly reduces stress, its a nice way to unwind. Thats why they call it chilling out.
The trouble with cannabis is its legal status no more and no less and its kind of surreal that you can be convicted for possession by a guy who legally might have drunk a bottle of whiskey the night before.
As adults we are free to make choices about what we put inside our own bodies. I'm not going to stop you from putting a cheeseburger in your mouth no matter how damaging it is to your health or stop you drinking so why the fuss about people doing something which is relatively healthy. Smokes not good granted but in a legal situation i'm sure more people would choose to brew tea.
I expect there are a lot of people that are drinking alcohol rather than using cannabis purely because alcohol use will not damage career prospects like a criminal conviction would.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Haha,
I used to have Rottweiler dog when I was younger. It was a real nice dog and very very sweet. However, everytime you got it out to jog, people would keep their distance from the dog. I guess they seem quite impressive.
Until one day while we got it out for a walk, a woman saw it and very quickly approached and started to pet the dog. Our first reaction was of concern, but the lady told us that she was not worried because she had Rottweilers before and she knew they are very nice sweet dogs.
To this day, I would *never* think of doing the same when I see a Rottweiler walking in the street... they do seem dangerous and badass hehe
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
What does "deserved" mean? Did the boy in question do something that merited a punishment or is he simply guilty for being different or not part of the in crowd in some way.
This appears to just be a flame war gone bad. The alleged son was defending his mother, a candidate for local public office, in a newspaper comment section of an article related to her. Many of the alleged son's postings have been deleted as against the site TOS which leads me to believe that he was the bully in this case and Hipcheck16 just snapped back. It's not clear when or if Hipcheck16 knew it was supposedly her son.
What I find hard to believe is that is that the person who made the comments has any balls at all considering they went all the way to court to protect their identity, rather than say it to a person's face.
Well, we're talking about a local political race in the Chicago area. This is all about political retaliation. If the guy turns out to be a nobody, the mother gets free publicity for protecting her "son" (there is question if that was even him who was posting, or was her or one of her campaign staffers). If the guy turns out to be one of her political opponents she's going to run him out of town.
You're wrong about dangerous dog breads.
I, for one, welcome our warm crusty buttery lawgiving canine overlords.
So the deeply disturbing comments appear to be a teasing double-entendre. That Hipcheck16 may get sued over as the boy has a recently elected parent whom will get kudos for Thinking of the children.
My virgin ears (eyes?) I'm forever scarred.
You don't actually think with your brain do you? I personally don't have much of a problem with banning certain breeds, as it has become clear that many people can't train them correctly. However what you are talking about is purposefully making an animal aggressive... there are few dog owners that actually do that. And that can be done to any breed, or probably any animal. The bear analogy is stupid, and if you actually think about it you will realize that. You will also realize that making stupid arguments like you did will only degrade your position, not support it, as most people will see through your veil of logic. I'll make a deal with you, you quit saying stupid shit, and I won't start.
No comprende? Let me type that a little slower for you...
Walking up and petting a strange dog is just a bad idea. For all she knew, you were one of those irresponsible dog owners who trains their dogs to be fighting machines. Or perhaps the dog is just very protective of its family and will defend any perceived threat (like a lady coming too close). That's why my son knows the proper protocol for petting a dog. First, ask the owner (and us) if it is ok. If the answer is yes, ask where the dog likes to be petted. Next, put out your hand for the dog to sniff. Then slowly pet the dog in the spot indicated. Of course, if the owner isn't around and the dog is roaming free, they know that the answer automatically is "don't pet it and stay away!"
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
buster-bluth dept.
...Marijuana is the only one that is sure to cause greater societal suffering ...
I suppose you want to bring prohibition back? Has it ever been demonstrated that marijuana leaves a person as incapable as the average alcohol drinker? Do you realize there are more people in prison because they were in possession of something they were not to have?
All theory is gray
That is the reason why you need several special permits (driving license, vehicle inspection proof, insurance) to operate a car on a public road.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
A fair point indeed. I would agree the problem is people, how do we solve this though? Isn't it better to try something, knowing full well its not the ideal solution, than do nothing?
I'd rather be faced a savage trained killer cocker-spaniel than a pit-bull if push come to shove.
Invaders must die
...Generally when dogs like that "cross the border from one persons property to the next"....
they are simply shot dead. That is what many property owners do around here to stray dogs. Anybody that allows their darling pet to run around free, without supervision, doesn't really love that dog and deserves to have it shot. No law is needed nor is the Sheriff's time wasted.
All theory is gray
The crust of most dog breads are a bit too ruff for me; I prefer beagles and cream cheese.
Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
Just to be clear, no one is accusing Jed Stone of inviting Glenn Beck over to his house for a sexual liason, and no one is accusing Glenn Beck of inviting Jed Stone to his house for a sexual liason -- in fact, we think he didn't! But we can't help but wonder ... Why won't they deny these liasons?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred
is much better -- it's written by actual legal scholars and discusses what the specific "deeply disturbing" comments were. Sometimes the hometown major newspaper isn't actually the best place to get articles, Slashdot.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
The Founding Fathers never for one moment imagined that the Constitution would be used as a charter to allow bullying, or to allow corporations for force feed you with advertisements and unwanted phone calls. One reason the UK does not have a written constitution is that generations of legislators have worried about generic laws being overtaken by social change, or misused. They have always regarded it as essential that Parliament should be able to make laws as required to deal with new situations.
In fact "freedom of speech" is limited by laws of libel and slander, by laws relating to official secrecy, by local laws relating to the treatment of minors, and by the power of media owners. I'm not saying the US is wrong and the UK is right; the UK has far too little protection of the individual, and both countries have legal systems intended to benefit the rich and disadvantage the poor. But simplistric referring to the US Constitution is to deny or ignore what actually happens in the real world.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I think too many people abuse Anonymous. It's become the norm on the internet. It turns rational adults into little children. They know they can say anything with impunity. No risk of repercussion. It's made the internet an adolescent playground with no adult supervision.
I think they should remove any expectation of Privacy/Anonymity, and only allow special exceptions (whistle blowers, media sources, etc, as a protected class of information).
a large and dangerous dog as a child. I would never call for a ban on either of those
You're absolutely right, dogs are way too cute for us to ban them. Children, on the other hand...
And it seems that she's not alone. This was the most disturbing comment that I saw on the original page:
"“Freedom of speech” is most frequently used by racists and criminals to deceive others. It’s an outmoded concept and it needs to go. There is no reason in today’s civilized world why anyone should need to say anything that isn’t supported by the majority of the public and the body of science. We have passed the point where legitimate thinking is suppressed without understanding, so the only thinking that would be suppressed is broken criminal thinking that should be suppressed. The Constitution is no longer a model for a “more perfect union” - We have the More Perfect Union right here - right now - and the Constitution is now just a hindrance. People do not need the right to own murder weapons or spout racist nonsense. It needs to go."
Unbelievable. I had to respond (post 15)...
Anybody that allows their darling pet to run around free, without supervision, doesn't really love that dog and deserves to have it shot.
Seriously? How can you be much of an ass? I'm sure there has never been an occasion where a dog has gotten lose with proper attention from an owner. Hell, I had a dog that was let loose by a pest control person servicing my house. I didn't know until I came home from work. Do you really think I would deserve to have my dog shot? No.
Although this post is causing quite a stir around issues of anonymity, how bout the main geek factor here? Doing business with the 800 pound gorilla of ISP's is simply another way of throwing away your rights. They cover their arses with AUP's & TOS's and really couldn't care less about their customers individual rights or the Constitutional protections of American citizens. Seems like it may be time to start utilizing guerrilla tactics in regards to all public posts made.
--
*this post made with stolen wifi and the computer used was destroyed afterward*
" . . . breeds are not inherently vicious, individuals are."
You make several good points, but I disagree with the "absoluteness" implied in your statement. You're suggesting that all breeds/species of dogs are born with a behavioral "blank slate" and that their eventual temperament is ENTIRELY a product of environment. Would you argue that the dog's eventual height, wieght, color, strength, agility, etc. are ENTIRELY a product of exercise and nutrition? I agree that almost any breed of dog could be conditioned to be friendly and basically "harmless" or could be conditioned to be mean and vicious through abuse and neglect. However, dogs are born with a pre-disposed temperament. That's why the training regimen and handling routines are different for different breeds. Compare and contrast the temperament of a golden retriever and doberman pinscher. There are definite and easily observed pre-dispositions there. Either dog can be trained to co-exist happily with people, including children and strangers, but in general, a doberman is going to require more discipline and assertiveness from a human friend, especially in its younger years. Otherwise, the dog will all too easily assume the role of "pack leader".
". . . banning those breeds won't solve the problem, or even alleviate it in a meaningful way"
I completely agree. The "bad" behavior of the dog is entirely the responsibility of the owner, and making certain breeds "illegal" because of a few people who don't know how to handle the animal, or who deliberately mis-handle the animal is ridiculous. If anything, we should prevent certain people from owning pets.
Cars don't act on their own and the legal ability to drive is regulated. So good analogy dangerous things should have regulations where possible.
When it's one on one, the choices are pretty clear cut.
It becomes more mulled when it's unbalanced: major freedoms of few for minor securities of many, or minor freedoms of many for major securities of few.
The dog owners are a minority. The dogs are for them an important part of their lives. The people who are afraid of dangerous breeds are a majority. This is a mere anxiety for them, usually baseless too, only in rare cases reasonable.
Now is it fair to take an important part of lives of few to satisfy minor anxieties of many?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I'm not saying that he is the anonymous poster, but I think the public would feel better if Glenn can please tell us that he did not do this.
I agree, and maybe should have moderated my statements a bit more to make that clear. You'll note that I did mention that certain personality traits are characteristic of certain breeds, so clearly I agree that temperament is not ENTIRELY a product of their environment. What I intended to convey is that "viciousness" is something which will not occur naturally in a dog without environmental factors playing a significant role, except possibly in extremely rare cases (the equivalent of a human with genetic sociopathy, assuming such a thing exists). If the dog has not been trained well enough for the owner to control it properly, then it should be kept restrained more than most dogs might require (keep it in a large fenced yard instead of taking it to the dog park and letting it run around off the leash), but that doesn't make it a vicious dog, or even dangerous if managed properly.
Having been bitten by a dog that lunged through a screen door while I was approaching the front door of a house, I (and the law!) disagree. Even if the dog is on your property, you must remain in control of it at all times.
You're next! I'll get all you slimy coward names! MWAHAHA!
By the way, have you noticed how everything seems to fall on a Cook County Circuit judge lately?
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
Isn't it better to try something, knowing full well its not the ideal solution, than do nothing?
I would agree with that statement sometimes, however it is necessary to look at the specifics. For example, without careful consideration, that line of reasoning will lead to implementation of solutions that seem intuitively helpful (if not ideal) on the surface, but which in reality would be not worth the cost (in dollars or freedom), or might even be outright useless or counter-productive. If you don't mind a few extreme examples to illustrate my point, the fact that people drive too fast in residential areas and thus sometimes kill small children is a problem -- should we ban cars in residential areas? Or what about mandate some sort of speed regulator paired with a built-in GPS device so prevent cars from going about 25mph when driving on residential roads? They are solutions, if not ideal, and so should we not implement one of them rather than do nothing?
It all depends on what you reasonably expect you will accomplish (including foreseeable side effects), and whether the positives are worth the negatives. In the two examples I just gave, I think most people would agree that the negatives outweigh the positives. As someone who generally thinks bureaucracy and legislation have inherent negatives, by default I will reject the idea of banning anything unless I'm given reason to believe it will do some substantial good. Since we're not talking about a specific implementation of how to ban certain breeds, I can't effectively evaluate how much good I think it will do and how much harm -- but since the idea at its core is flawed, I will default to saying it will do more harm than good.
I'd rather be faced a savage trained killer cocker-spaniel than a pit-bull if push come to shove.
Sure, but do you think the people who have vicious bit-bulls now will trade them for cocker-spaniels if you ban pit-bulls? They will opt for some other medium-large, strong, intelligent, protective breed that just doesn't have the same reputation (yet), against which you would fare no better than the doberman. Or are you suggesting we ban all dogs above 30 lbs?
I would agree the problem is people, how do we solve this though?
Well, characterize the problem for me first (I'm not aware of a specific description of the problem that we're discussing at the moment, just the general idea that sometimes dogs attack people). We're not going to pre-emptively prevent all dog attacks, just like we're not going to pre-emptively prevent all car accidents or all violent crime. It's worth doing what we reasonably can, but realistically it's not a problem we can "solve", just something we should try to manage reasonably.
Except that you're advocating restricting the actions of others because of a theory about the possibility of future harm to you. You have every right to ask for restrictions on people attacking you with dogs. I'm not so sure that it's reasonable for you to restrict my owning a dog because some dog, somewhere else, was vicious and not controlled by it's owner. Under that theory, I could ask that you be enjoined from owning a computer, because someone, somewhere else, used a computer to steal money.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
Add to this the fact that the US government, the Australian government, and the German government have done studies on the effects of driving while stoned. All of these studies found relatively little incremental danger of accident due to pot smoking. The australian study found that if you're drunk, you are -less- likely to get into an accident if you also get stoned. The US NHTSA study, performed in 1992, was suppressed because it didn't find an incremental danger. It found that drivers under the influence of pot a) weren't that impaired, and b) effectively managed their impairment by slowing down as needed to navigate the course. These can be found at www.druglibrary.org.
In the whole debate of driving and pot, we color the debate with our theory that since driving while under the influence of alcohol is extremely dangerous,m driving while under the influence of anything else must also be extremely dangerous. The evidence is that alcohol is relatively unique among commonly used recreational drugs in it's combination of damaging coordination and reduction of inhibition.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
Certain breeds are inbred physcopaths. They are mentally ill. They have been bred to be agressive over many generations. They have been bred to have less nerve endings in the skin. They have been bred to have bigger teeth, stronger jaws, and smaller ears (that can't be bitten off). They are designed to inflict damage.
Some dogs are bred to be dangerous. Most dogs are great pets.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
Rottweilers have never been dangerous though. One or two had funny five minutes and bite a few people. The media blew it out of proportion and now people thing they are dangerous dogs.
I must admit though, a neighbour has two of them and they can be intimidating.
This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
In my state, I can, and sometimes do, carry a gun, precisely to mitigate this type of risk. Of course, that is going to make someone else quail at the societal risk I now represent.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
>I don't want you walking around with a dangerous tool of rape tucked in your trousers. You could rape me any time!
I don't like the direction were this discussion is going. Especially when the nickname is SharpFang
As a long time dog owner, I'll add that variability within a breed is pretty significant. The book, Art of Raising a Puppy, by the Monks of New Skete, speaks in detail of how to assess the level of innate aggression in puppies. This variation in aggression can be assessed when the puppies are 8 weeks old.
I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
> Pesticides, too, can perhaps be used in a way that doesn't cause all of those
> nasty chemicals to pollute someone else's property. Until it crosses the border
> from one person's property to the next, it's OK in my book.
Score 4 insightful? Give me a break!
Where the hell do you think those chemicals end up? They get into the entire ecosystem and thus get into *everyone's* property. *That's* why there are limits on using pesticides and calls to reduce that even further.
Oh yes, and to that anonymous coward:
> from her website, she's generally anti-freedom
>
> opposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds
> opposes freedom to use "dangerous pesticides" to kill mosquitoes
> opposes freedom to use marijuana
She probably also opposes the freedom to kill people? Ghastly!
All animals have certain instincts that are triggered by a situation. I would not want to be the person that your dogs perceived to be attacking you. Agreed that rottweilers are great animals, but don't be surprised by their very strong instinct to defend.
So what are you doing to make her unelectable?
I'm sure a lot of whites in the south were uneasy when blacks rode their buses/ate in their diners - was it fair to take away their rights since the "majority" was afraid? That is why we are a republic and not a democracy.
--- You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you mad- Neal (not Cowboy) Boortz
Because the only reason to invite someone to your house, or to go to their house is sex.
I'd say that marijuana smells strongly... badly would mean that I don't like it ;)
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Problem: Dangerous animals roaming about which could attack you
Solution: Personal protection. Large stick, pistol, etc.
GREAT point, whoever mentioned that cars > dogs when it comes to danger. Dogs, however, do have the potential to chase you in ways that a car is unlikely to.
Dog breeds can't be inherently dangerous, unless they are more than 1/4th wolf. Only individual dogs who have been raised improperly are dangerous. People have a right to property. If something goes wrong with their property and it harms you or a family member, then SUE THEM. Don't try to use government guns to deprive people of property just because you don't like it, or because you have an irrational fear of it.
... Do you really think I would deserve to have my dog shot?....
Maybe not in your city neighborhood, but here in the country, ranchers shoot dogs every day, because these unsupervised darling pets run around in packs at night and kill livestock. Thus, any unsupervised, loose dog is shot on sight. So yes, if you lived in the country, like I do, your dog would be dead meat. Mountain lions get the same treatment.
All theory is gray
legally, there never was any greater expectation of privacy on the internet, but you stick a box on a webform that says, "post anonymously" and everyone thinks it means something.
The problem with dog bans is that there's a correlation/causation problem when defining "vicious breeds."
Er...in most places you need a license to own a pet, too.
If there was no expectation of privacy, the court wouldn't be ordering the release of this info, no?
Dogs were bred from wolves, selected to be less dangerous and trainable. Some were modified for sport fighting, but this mostly involved improving their ability to withstand damage. It's true their mental capacities were diminished to make them better tools for psychopaths, but with very few people breeding fighters any more, the breeds have degenerated a good deal. Except for stupid/helpless animals like children and pets, dogs aren't dangerous to anyone unless they have been trained to be.
There are several stray dogs around my town. It's an all year round phenomenon but it gets stronger in the summer months because stupid owners abandon their pets to go on vacation.
So, because of these stupid and selfish people I have to put up with dogs causing traffic accidents, spreading disease, spreading garbage everywhere because they search food inside trash cans, etc. And shooting these motherfuckers is illegal so I can just call the city hall and wait for them to do nothing (which is what they do).
Meanwhile, I have to put up with streets paved with dog shit because the owners go walk their dogs and don't pick up the shit afterwards. It's illegal behavior, but who's looking?
Anyway, it's not the poor creatures' fault. Their owners should be shot instead, but that's illegal too (sigh).
I heard about the government implanting a chip inside every dog and cat. That would solve the abandon problem right away: Any dog found on the street would be immediately returned to his owner accompanied with a huge fine. Any dog not implanted with a chip would be immediately executed and, if there's an apparent owner, the shit fined out of him. I've been waiting for this chip thing to be implemented for years, but it's taking long.
As for the dog shit on the sidewalks, I can't see any definitive solution for it. It would require people to start behaving like they were civilised, and that's not an option.
Certain breeds are inbred physcopaths. They are mentally ill.
Like which ones? Rottwielers? I have only known 2 personally, and they were both incredibly sweet dogs. Sure, that's anecdotal evidence, but since you're making sweeping generalizations, I think it's better than nothing. If you want to convince me all Rottwielers are mentally ill phsycopaths, you're going to need some hard evidence.
They have been bred to be agressive over many generations.
I think you're wrong. They've been bred to have dominant personalities, and to be mistrustful of strangers as opposed to those they recognize as part of their pack. Neither of those things translates to "aggressive" in my book, much less "violent without provocation" which is what you seem to be suggesting.
They have been bred to have less nerve endings in the skin. They have been bred to have bigger teeth, stronger jaws, and smaller ears (that can't be bitten off). They are designed to inflict damage.
Irrelevant to a discussion of their personalities. You might as well say that because body builders have spent years of their lives training to be bigger and stronger, and thus are more dangerous should one choose to attack you, they are therefore more dangerous people. Should we say people shouldn't be allow to body build? Or what about train in martial arts? They work to lessen their pain response in their skin, train to have stronger, faster muscles, and harder bones. Does that imply they are more likely to attack you without reason? Often, the opposite is true -- trained martial artists will be more confident and in control of their abilities, and are thus less likely to use excessive force accidentally through error or panic. (The same is true of properly trained dogs, regardless of temperament.) If a person attacks another unreasonably, we punish them. We should do the same (conceptually) for dogs, punishing the owner responsible for the situation if a dog attacks a person unreasonably. If it appears the dog is too dangerous to be safely rehabilitated, euthanize the dog. Banning certain breeds is still an inadequate and ineffective way to address the root issue. It's like saying that banning hollow-tip bullets will prevent shootings, because they are designed to do damage. At very best, it will change the situation such that if someone gets shot, they will get hurt less. But you know what? They real problem is that someone shot someone else, not the kind of bullet involved. Reread my comment -- banning certain breeds due to their physical characteristics will not reduce the number of "vicious" dogs in the world in any significant way, just like banning hollow-point bullets won't reduce the number of wackos with loaded guns.
Some dogs are bred to be dangerous.
I disagree. Some dogs are bred to have physical advantages in a fight. That isn't what makes a dog dangerous, it is their behavior and the ability of their owner to keep them under control in stressful circumstances.
Most dogs are great pets.
... when properly raised and trained, yes. When improperly raised, most dogs make bad pets; when abused, almost all dogs will be horrible pets unless someone puts time and energy into rehabilitating them.
Insecticide however very much is a question of public health.
-The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
there's no expectation of privacy in a convenience store either, but if the police want the surveillance video, the management can insist on a court order. (but they don't have to.)
From the October 5th 2009 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE VILLAGE BOARD OF THE VILLAGE OF BUFFALO GROVE: "Gary Stone (the lawyer husband of Trustee Linda Stone), 1924 Beverly Lane, shared a letter from his son, Jordan, a college student, stating that it is a sad day in politics when the method of engaging a challenging voice is to alienate it and drive it from the system it seeks to improve." This was a debate on adopting a recall method for elected officials in Buffalo Grove but could easily fit into the discussion here. Perhaps Jordan can have a chat with Mom and his younger brother Jed regarding the methods they're using to alienate and attack a challenging voice. I'm certain Linda Stone's desire to know the identity of HipCheck16 has very little to do with what was written to her son, and has an awful lot to do with HipCheck16's questioning of her qualifications and merits all throughout the election. If I lived in Buffalo Grove, I too would wonder what a PTO Mom and Reunion coordinator who didn't understand the Village budget could accomplish as a Trustee. And if that same person happened to spearhead a fear campaign against Pit Bulls and have a trial lawyer husband, I might post my comments anonymously just to avoid the fallout.
Exactly. The hardest my pit would ever hit someone is when she goes crashing into them because they just came in the door with McDonald's and she wants her fries. If a thief broke in to MY house, they'd get annoyed with all the whining for treats and leave...
Captcha: overdone
To wit: Who would take these guys away?
The CB App. What's your 20?
Never a mod point when you need one. *tips hat*
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
The type of person prepared to drive while stoned is pretty much the same as the type that will drive while drunk.
Acutally, no. I know lots of people who have no problem with driving stoned, but who would never even consider driving drunk. The former is mildly risky; while the latter is terrifyingly dangerous. (Personally, I don't drive at all. Doesn't matter how drunk or stoned you are, when you ride the subway or a cab.)
My workplace contains has signs posted stating: "[Company Name] is a fragrance-free workplace." They include a no-perfume graphic. It's pretty kickass.
Like which ones? Rottwielers?
Caucasians.
Sometimes the best way to argue with anti-freedom nimrods is to (pretend to) endorse the logical consequences of their philosophy.
perhaps the biggest killer on the roads is a drunk behind the wheel.
No, they only kill a few thousand per year - the actual number isn't tracked anywhere. What kills people on the road is driving like idiots and relying on your car to protect you.
The type of person prepared to drive while stoned is pretty much the same as the type that will drive while drunk.
Stoned people drive better, largely because they know they're fucked up and drive very carefully.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
You have a right to carry a firearm for self defense (unless you live in the DC area).
Not even a vicious dog is immune to bullets.
Blacks eating in a diner is hardly as hazardous as some white trash idiot and his 'attack dog'. This decade, the attack dog is a rottie, but it's been doberman, german shepherd, and a couple others in the past. Deal with the white trash idiot and his penchant for large, poorly trained dogs.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
I met a rottie pup last year - cute, sweet, and resembled a tube of meat with a tail on one end. My friend from back east knew a guy with a full grown rottweiler - biggest hazard there was that she'd jump in your lap (90 lb dog) and slobber on you. Physcopath, indeed.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
To quote the alleged post, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?" - this is trash talk if ever I've seen it. What's next, suing over yo'mama jokes?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
that's a specious argument - "there are many more things in the world that are more dangerous than X" doesn't make X any less dangerous than it actually is
Rottweilers do have their share of problems.
They wake up slowly. If they've been dreaming about getting threatened, they might bite whoever woke them up before reorienting in the situation.
They are very patient but they snap rapidly. An abused rottweiler will withstand the abuse quietly for a long time, then finally snap and attack seemingly without warning and all overdue aggression, while other dog would growl and warn long before.
They have a pretty sensitive psyche. It's easy to make a murderer dog out of one, and then getting it back to normal is nearly impossible.
But that is just a basic knowledge every rottweiler owner should have. It's way easier to learn than what is needed for driver's license and way less dangerous than driving a car too. But there is some basic level of responsibility and knowledge required... and some lack it, which hurts all.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your news letter.
Like which ones? Rottwielers?
Caucasians.
I think we need to define terms here. GP was talking about dogs bred for aggression to the point of bring mentally ill psychopaths. While I do see that the page you link says "They are loyal to their duty in protecting their flock and family and will stand by and defend through any circumstance. They are an extremely aggressive animal and need very experienced owners.", I think that is aggression in the sense that they will be proactive in defending their flock and family, even to the point of attacking a stranger if the dog feels the person is a threat. (As opposed to a less aggressive dog which might bark and growl without attacking, or on the extreme other end perhaps run away or greet the stranger hoping for affection.) Note that the same page says "vicious temperaments are considered serious faults for the breed." So I will acknowledge that there are breeds which are specifically bred for aggression, but I will stand by my opinion that there is no breed which is "mentally ill" or "vicious" as a whole, and especially that banning breeds of dogs is not a viable approach. If you ban dogs based on breed rather than individual training and/or behavior, you will still fail to address the real problem, which is that there are people who desire having dangerous dogs. Those people will find a way to make a golden retriever vicious if necessary, if you ban all the more aggressive breeds, and then you're back to square 1.
You might become frightened though when those nimrods show genuine joy at the thought of those logical consequences. Let's not give them something to aspire to.
Uh, wait just a second there buddy.
Opposes vicious dog breeds. How many more children do you need mauled to death to make you realize pitbulls are dangerous? Yeah, I know with the right owner they can be lovable and fun, but let's face it: the majority of pit owners are trash. When you have an overwhelmingly large group of irresponsible owners with dangerous, ill-trained animals, innocent people will get hurt.
Opposes marijuana. Sorry bro, but not everyone wants to frolic in your drug-addled fantasies about getting high non-stop every day. Drugs ruin lives, and if that wasn't the case we wouldn't have rehab clinics. The only difference between marijuana and any other drug is that it can't kill you, but that's not to say it can't ruin your life. How many people started with weed before moving on to more powerful drugs? It IS a gateway drug. It gives you a safe taste of what's out there and then you'll want the harder stuff that will get you higher and last longer. If you think that isn't true, talk to a recovering addict.
I don't know about you, but as a father I'd like to keep dangerous dogs and illegal drugs away from my children. You should think about the well-being of other people than yourself.
correlation is not causation
Nope, but it's a safe bet.
correlation is not causation
Nope, but it's a safe bet.
Seriously? A safe bet? Did you even read the rest of my comment? Wow. I... I can't even form a coherent response. Excellent troll, sir.
Anybody that allows their darling pet to run around free, without supervision, doesn't really love that dog and deserves to have it shot. No law is needed nor is the Sheriff's time wasted.
And the animal, who didn't know any better, does he deserve to die over this? wow....
US society is being changed into a ridiculous parody of itself in which offense=crime....while REAL crimes, like passing bills no senator/congressman has read, in an impromptu special session on a weekend, seizure of lands and goods by federal 'troops' on behalf of corporate interests and 30% interest rates, are netting the people who commit them federal protections and tax-dollar-bail-outs.
Most of the 'officials' that make up your government truly believe that their political power should be used to do whatever they want to do at any given moment - because it's their moral imperative and responsibility to enforce 'the moral choice' on everyone, regardless whether 'everyone' shares their opinion on what is morally correct or not.
Ridiculous...and offensive. And since offense now = crime, I want them all prosecuted post-haste.
Did you RTFA?
To sum it up, the kid started talking trash to a perfect stranger, challenging him to a face-to-face (debate) confrontation. The stranger didn't escalate it by making threats, he simply twisted the kid's threatening bravado on its head and insinuating that he may be "soft", thus taking the wind out of his tough-guy sails. It also could be taken as a lesson in internet safety. If the kid was serious about this "I'll take you, face-to-face (in a debate or otherwise)" nonsense, that's really getting into dangerous territory.
If that's all the farther it got, let's call the waaaambulance. The adult made no threats, the kid was making (by all accounts) what could be considered threatening comments. He couldn't take nearly as much as he dished-out, and he deserves whatever shame he got in his attempt to call-out someone.
In case you all can't tell, I am NOT a fan of this double standard that minors should be able to take all the swings they want at adults with all the strength they can muster, and anytime an adult slaps back, it's suddenly some form of grievous assault.
I also wonder if the forum on which all this transpired had rules against minors posting. Many do. It would definitely add an entertaining new element to the story if the idiot mother does sue, and it comes out her sonny boy lied on the profile. That would be all kinds of fraud and computer trespass as we all learned from the Lori Drew case, that kid could wind up in prison!
That line of yours gave me a chuckle when I read the following one!
You've "backed it up" for me with that first quote!
However, when I prefaced my opinion with, "It appears to me," it proved more literal than I initially intended. Everywhere I go: roadways, airports, stores, restaurants, sporting events, etc -- I see a lack of common courtesy. You mentioned that you are aware of "abuse that people give out in public". When I look around, I not only see abuse, but rudeness, impatience, and a general lack of common courtesy as well.
To be fair, there are those of us who still like to extend a complement, allow someone to merge, say "please" and "thank you", etc; but it does seem to be more and more "out of fashion", for lack of a better term.
Given the progressive mantra of, "Intolerance must not be tolerated!", I feel we have become too tolerant of the abuse that you see in public, as well as the lack of common courtesy I see in public. So, perhaps in our determined efforts to be tolerant (for the sake of tolerance?), we have only ourselves to blame...
Even today, we insist on depriving some people of certain civil rights because they make another tyrannical minority that has the ability to sway the majority "uncomfortable".
Civil rights should --never-- be put up for a vote. The religious-sponsored bigotry against gay couples having the civil right and accompanying responsibilities of marriage needs to come to an end. Just as interracial marriages (which have also been illegal in the past) didn't harm anyone or society at large, IN NO WAY does recognizing legal gay marriage hurt a straight, religious couple. Maybe their religious sensibilities might be offended. Too fucking bad.
I'm ashamed that in my country right now, we are continuing to put civil rights up to a vote in this manner, and voting said rights down at every opportunity.
...an lllinois court will apply a three part test to determine whether or not Doe's statements reasonably implies the existence of a provably false fact. Hopewell v. Vitullo. 299 Ill.App.3d 513, 518-19 (1998). Cohn. Decl., Exh. W. First the court will "consider whether the language of the statement has a precise and readily understood meaning, while bearing in mind that the first amendment protects overly loose, figurative, rhetorical, or hyperbolic language, which negates the impression that the statement actually presents facts." Id. Second, the court will consider "whether the general tenor of the context in which the statement appears negated the impression that the statement has factual content." Id.Third, the court will consider "whether the statement is susceptible of being objectively verified as true or false." Id
This is from a Motion to Quash submitted by EFF, against the CEO of an Illinois company who, as plaintiff in a libel suit, was trying to "unmask" one of their anonymous critics on a Yahoo! message board . EFF ultimately prevailed, and the John Doe remained anonymous. See http://www.eff.org/cases/e-van-cullens-v-john-doe
I believe, however (again, IANAL), that if any of the tests pass, then the underlying libel suit is "obviously without merit" and does not entitle the plaintiff to unmask the defendant.
Wait a minute, why are you so concerned about being sent to guantanomo (sic) bay? I think it's time we questioned you.
This is a joke...
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred
... the animal, who didn't know any better...
Well if it comes down to some careless unloving owner letting their dogs run loose and kill a bunch of chickens or sheep, then the rancher is authorized to get rid of such problem dogs. They shoot cougars and foxes, as well as other predators of their livestock. So far at least, around here, people are still allowed to protect their property.
There should be a steep fine, say $1000 or more for letting a dog run wild. Maybe then careless dog owners would keep a better control of their darling pets. Fewer dogs than would be executed by ranchers and they wouldn't be as many in the pound either.
All theory is gray
I see prohibition as a failed attempt at market regulation.
If people want booze, they are going to get it by hook or by crook even if they have to get it at the black market
Same thing with pot.
If you make selling pot a crime, then only criminals will sell pot.
As long as there is a demand, there will be a supply. May as well level the playing field and let the good guys take a piece of the pie...and pay taxes on it...and be subject to consumer recourse if things go sour...
The proper recourse in that case would be to have your dog properly licensed.
Now, the fact that your pest control dude let it escape in the first place means that mr RoachBGone probably needs to chip in on your loss as well.
And exactly WHOSE payroll is the judge on?
No there isn't. I'm sure nurture (or lack thereof) has a bit to do with "vicious breeds", however no one owns a rottweiler or a pitbull because they're cute and good around children.
Your MOM Online.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Agreed, except to say that for a few breeds of dogs it might be extremely difficult to make them vicious. Difficult enough that it would just not be possible by abuse and neglect, but would require actual training in viciousness.
But that has little bearing on anything, since even people who have have too many vicious dogs would need to be banned from owning even those breeds, out of concern for animal welfare.
I certainly would say that there is no extreme opposite case. Even the most naturally vicious of breeds can be rendered harmless without extreme measures, although there may be a few individual dogs that would be terribly difficult to tame.
The problem is defining -what- is your civil right and what is just a fancy.
Is owning a dog a civil right?
Is marriage a legal right? Noting that it's an entirely artificial legal construct which doesn't change anything physically.
How wrong would it be to separate "marriage" being a simple declaration of pairing a couple from "mutual commonwealth" which would introduce all the economic/legal effects of current marriage without declaring the two people anything else than bound by an economic contract? In this case, "mutual commonwealth" would introduce entirely nondiscriminatory legal way to have gay couples share a bank account, visit one another in hospital, pay taxes together, without affecting the religious feelings of the straight; a separation of the country from the church. And then, gays who still want to be wed, could seek a religion that would allow that just fine, and be recognized to be wed in light of this religion, completely separately from material and legal commonwealth and completely separately from the christian concept of marriage.
In this way, you'd give them a -civil- right to all the benefits of a marriage without the marriage itself, while cutting them off from -religious- concept of marriage which is neither subject nor interest of the law, other than freedom of faith with as discriminatory and as unfair concepts concerning abstract constructs of the faith as they only desire, except with no real discriminatory impact on the physical world and the actual laws.
On top of that, as much as freedom to believe whatever you wish should be protected, "offending religious feelings" should be dealt with Canonical law of said religion, to the extent allowed by common law, that is they could declare you condemned to hell and exclude you from religious community, but couldn't sue you for money.
In other words, I should be able to tell you you will go to hell because you are black, but I can't deny you work for that. And you can laugh at me saying hell doesn't exist, or go to my bishop to excommunicate me for not loving my black brother, but you can't sue me for damages resulting from discrimination.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
I grew up with a truly demented dachshund. He was a vicious, but hardly dangerous.
I agree with you that banning dogs isn't the answer, but you have to admit that certain breeds are bred for aggressive traits.
The dogs bred for dog fighting, for example, are entirely selected by their willingness to attack, strength, aggression, etc.. And while a puppy of one of those fighting dogs might be trained to be nice, and if properly leashed and supervised, would never harm another person, the chance is higher that he will attack.
How much higher a chance? Too many factors to tell.
Most of the early bans on pit bulls were in large cities that had dog fighting problems. Stupid owners would breed and train them for aggression, and then not properly fence them in. Dog gets out...bites a kid...media frenzy.
Heh, yeah.. especially if this account (also by Hipcheck16) is accurate:
How puzzling that she's not seeking to unmask the anonymous callers.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Many urban areas also require a license to own a dog...
On a side note, licensing systems are ostensibly well intentioned, but they have enormous potential for abuse and few (if any) safeguards against such abuse.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
It doesn't really matter whether the cause is the owner or the dog itself. If there's a high correlation of attacks with a certain breed, then that's evidence of a public health/safety risk, regardless of the cause. It's the same reason you can't buy liquor 24/7; not because liquor is inherently more dangerous after midnight or 2AM, but because making it available during those hours results in an increase in crime, while halting sales results in a decrease.
Personally, I don't agree with either of those actions (banning breeds or regulating the hours of liquor sales) even if they increase public safety, but your specific argument is flawed. There is no question that banning pitbulls will lead to fewer attacks by pitbulls as long as the law is enforceable and enforced. The only question is whether it's justifiable to punish the many for the acts of the few, and in the US, where safety is concerned, the answer is a resounding "yes." I could go on a rant about the ill-effects of the pursuit of safety, but I'll save that for the next article about the Patriot Act or DHS.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
But once again that is on the owner, not the breed. Any breed can become dangerous. Outlawing a breed is just stupid.
I've owned six dogs, five breeds, and while that's not a huge sample, I'm not really convinced that there's any significant difference from breed to breed. More importantly, I've seen no scientific evidence to verify such claims of supposed breed behavior traits. In the animal world, size == power, so yes, larger dogs may be more likely to pick fight over flight, but beyond that I think the differences are mostly conditioning. In my opinion, it's people's expectations, and perhaps unconscious cues, that creates (or emphasizes) a specific behavior, the same way if I suggest that you'll see the number 12 a lot today, you'll be more likely to notice when you do.
*Any* dog can potentially bite when awoken, hence the term "let sleeping dogs lie." *Any* dog can be taught to be ferocious, but Rotts & Pits are more muscular than most, and therefore more effective in their attacks, and more readily sought out by people who want their dogs to be weapons. Dogs that don't warn or growl are dogs that have been taught (conditioned) not to growl. "Sensitive" is a fairly ambiguous term. They're good (bad) at interpreting body language? They're easily offended? They're easily confused? A well-trained dog knows what is expected of it, what is unacceptable, and any perceived sensitivity is likely a lack of consistency in its training.
For example, if a dog is sometimes permitted and sometimes rebuffed (or worse, beaten) when it jumps on the couch, then it will remain confused. He knows that *being* on the couch feels good, and it must be ok, because every time he lays there you pet him, or at least tacitly accept his presence. (Actually he only gets to lay there when you let him, but you have to look at it from the dog's perspective: Only good things happen once he's settled on the couch, so being on the couch must be okay. It doesn't help that being comfortable is its own reward). But he also knows that *getting* to the couch is dangerous, because sometimes he makes it, and sometimes bad things happen. It's much the same way you might be on your toes when you have to walk down a dark alley to get to a night club. The act of getting on the couch becomes the dark alley for the dog. He may or may not safely arrive, and he has to be ready to defend himself through fight or flight, but it's worth trying.
Dogs can develop all sorts of nonsense connections because of our inconsistent behavior. If you're housebreaking a dog and you punish him after the fact, he could develop a negative association with the *room* you took him in to rub his nose in it, swat him, or whatever (which, ethical issues aside, is why punishment is such an ineffective and potentially dangerous training technique in enough instances that it should just be avoided altogether.) So any time he's in that room thereafter, he's on alert for any (perceived) threat.
Say you (or someone else) yelled at your dog and then swatted him, and now he's learned to associate a yell and a raised hand with incoming pain. Next thing you know, your kids are running around screaming and waving their hands, and the dog flips out.
It doesn't even take punishment though. Dogs can't necessarily distinguish between accidental harm and intentional harm, so if you hop out of bed one day and land on his tail, he may learn to fear you getting out of bed. The next day you wake up and jump out of bed, and the dog bites you to defend himself.
It can be a long road to break a dog of its fears -- one that most people will never tread. Either the dog consistently chooses flight, and they ignore it, or he chooses to fight, and they give him up or put him down (no Rick Roll intended). Which is unfortunate, and probably the cause of many instances of dog "aggression" (self defense).
All of that said, I'll concede that there can be hereditary issues like glandular differences that could predispose one breed to abnormal levels of a given hormone. But that's hardly the same as ambiguous, undisprovable statements I've seen, such as "labs LOVE to please people," or "Pits are mean," which I've found no more or less true than for any other breed.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
In my view the local newspaper is hardly resisting the plaintiff, they could have done a better job.
If it was posted on a blog instead of newspaper website, plaintiffs would have to drag Google or WordPress to court. I guess that would be much harder than dragging the friendly small local newspaper to court.
See blogger resisting search somewhere in Asia... it is still simmering there though.