It's not exactly modern to be running Notepad full-screen without being able to layer 3 or 4 windows around the screen at whatever size I want like I've been able to do for over 15 years now. I'm surprised they haven't renamed the OS "Window." I guess you can have two windows at once in Modern UI, so they can still say "Windows."
The point is that if you opt not to do preventative care, that will cost more money to your insurance company in the long run compared to the cost of the preventative care itself. It's in the insurance company's best interest to give you whatever perks you need to make sure you stay healthy.
I'm in the latter group and don't prefer it over nothing at all. The individual mandate just shouldn't be possible under our Constitution and I'm afraid what comes next (in areas other than healthcare) now that the provision has been upheld.
The individual mandate is one of two ways to make the ACA changes possible without skyrocketing rates. The other is single payer, which is the only one I deem acceptable.
It didn't have to be speech. Making it about free speech is just a strawman argument. It's not about their words being censored - they can say whatever they want (aside from the legal definition of slander). The actions they took were harassment and stalking. The fact that they used words only explains what tool they used - not their end goal.
We live in a society where you have the right to unrestricted speech. Even the most vile of it.
Not true. Slander is illegal.
But that's not the issue. The fact that the girls used words is not the defining factor in making this harassment or stalking. It's not even about the words they chose. Saying it's about free speech is just a strawman.
The freedom to communicate ideas without worrying about the Thought Police listening to everything we say vs. people having their feelings hurt when people say mean things to them. For me the freedom to communicate trumps the right of people not to get their feelings hurt
We distinguish between that and harassment/stalking. Especially based on intent. Saying mean things is protected speech. But these girls weren't using words to express themselves. They were doing it to harm people. And they did it to an extreme. This isn't some slippery slope. It's clear cut. You seem to be saying we can't draw any lines in the sand because it could be abused, but these two things are so far removed from each other you can't even call what these girls did "speech."
but those things are best left up to society as a whole and not the criminal system.
Society as a whole established a criminal system to handle it more efficiently. Anarchy isn't popular with society.
Additionally, if leaving a shitty comment on Facebook is "felony stalking", then what was it when that girl got my address from whois and showed up at my door, one night?
An annoying isolated incident. Not even non-felony stalking The felony comes from it leading to a death (the "aggravated" modifier).
What about that mental guy, years ago, who registered my name as a domain and started posting vile shit (even using my own whois information for his whois on it)? Certainly slander. Most likely harassment. Those laws have been around a long time.
At some point, we have to just accept that many human beings are worthless heaps of shit and that when you are exposed to some one or two billion of them at once (the internet), you will inevitably run into them?
The law seems to accept that there's so many of them that you likely know one personally. And there's structure in place for things like restraining orders.
What's the resolution, in this case?.... her own parents should yank the internet and cell phone and everything else away from her and ground her for six or twelve months. You know, be parents.
And what if she was an adult? Apparently her parents should punish her but everybody should tolerate it if she's an adult? Again with the anarchy.
So if 100 people followed you all day long giving you small bruises when you least expected it, is that still cool with you? What if they were standing on all sides of you following you around everywhere you go? Where is your limit?
So let's talk about physical violence, then. Even broken bones can heal with relative success. Bruises definitely can. So why is that different? Is it because of an emotional trauma that's linked to it? If so, is there another route to get that emotional trauma?
And that's not a crime until it gets to the level these girls were at. You implied that this girl should get rid of her Facebook account and her cell phone. Of course she could live without it. But she shouldn't have to. Her freedoms were being trampled on.
"Yes IK I bullied REBECCA nd she killed herself but IDGAF." Don't know why the summary cut off the last part of the quote. You can assume they are just coping, but that shouldn't excuse or forgive anything.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not exactly modern to be running Notepad full-screen without being able to layer 3 or 4 windows around the screen at whatever size I want like I've been able to do for over 15 years now. I'm surprised they haven't renamed the OS "Window." I guess you can have two windows at once in Modern UI, so they can still say "Windows."
Nobody even owns a cupcake pan nor are they planning to buy one. They all have 9x13's. Microsoft programmed to the wrong interface.
It's the first .1 release since 3.1. We've had Service Packs and year numbers and "Second Editions" but we haven't had a .1 in a long time.
Personally I'd wait for Windows 8.11 for Workgroups.
The point is that if you opt not to do preventative care, that will cost more money to your insurance company in the long run compared to the cost of the preventative care itself. It's in the insurance company's best interest to give you whatever perks you need to make sure you stay healthy.
I'm in the latter group and don't prefer it over nothing at all. The individual mandate just shouldn't be possible under our Constitution and I'm afraid what comes next (in areas other than healthcare) now that the provision has been upheld.
The individual mandate is one of two ways to make the ACA changes possible without skyrocketing rates. The other is single payer, which is the only one I deem acceptable.
The death panels are a fact.
Furthermore, it already existed. It's called an insurance company approving or denying a procedure and it's done every day.
It didn't have to be speech. Making it about free speech is just a strawman argument. It's not about their words being censored - they can say whatever they want (aside from the legal definition of slander). The actions they took were harassment and stalking. The fact that they used words only explains what tool they used - not their end goal.
You would think at least one of us would have the good sense to knock it off by this point... However, my parents didn't raise a sociopathic quitter.
We're both cyberstalkers now. It's just down to whichever one of us can commit suicide first and ruin the other's life....well and our own.
OK. I meant the one that you called OP way upthread. This is getting complicated.
Uh, how does pointing out the difference between genocide and eugenics equate to support of either philosophy? To normally-brained people, anyway.
Teehee. Forgot you weren't OP.
We live in a society where you have the right to unrestricted speech. Even the most vile of it.
Not true. Slander is illegal.
But that's not the issue. The fact that the girls used words is not the defining factor in making this harassment or stalking. It's not even about the words they chose. Saying it's about free speech is just a strawman.
The freedom to communicate ideas without worrying about the Thought Police listening to everything we say vs. people having their feelings hurt when people say mean things to them. For me the freedom to communicate trumps the right of people not to get their feelings hurt
We distinguish between that and harassment/stalking. Especially based on intent. Saying mean things is protected speech. But these girls weren't using words to express themselves. They were doing it to harm people. And they did it to an extreme. This isn't some slippery slope. It's clear cut. You seem to be saying we can't draw any lines in the sand because it could be abused, but these two things are so far removed from each other you can't even call what these girls did "speech."
but those things are best left up to society as a whole and not the criminal system.
Society as a whole established a criminal system to handle it more efficiently. Anarchy isn't popular with society.
Additionally, if leaving a shitty comment on Facebook is "felony stalking", then what was it when that girl got my address from whois and showed up at my door, one night?
An annoying isolated incident. Not even non-felony stalking The felony comes from it leading to a death (the "aggravated" modifier).
What about that mental guy, years ago, who registered my name as a domain and started posting vile shit (even using my own whois information for his whois on it)?
Certainly slander. Most likely harassment. Those laws have been around a long time.
At some point, we have to just accept that many human beings are worthless heaps of shit and that when you are exposed to some one or two billion of them at once (the internet), you will inevitably run into them?
The law seems to accept that there's so many of them that you likely know one personally. And there's structure in place for things like restraining orders.
What's the resolution, in this case? .... her own parents should yank the internet and cell phone and everything else away from her and ground her for six or twelve months. You know, be parents.
And what if she was an adult? Apparently her parents should punish her but everybody should tolerate it if she's an adult? Again with the anarchy.
So if 100 people followed you all day long giving you small bruises when you least expected it, is that still cool with you? What if they were standing on all sides of you following you around everywhere you go? Where is your limit?
So let's talk about physical violence, then. Even broken bones can heal with relative success. Bruises definitely can. So why is that different? Is it because of an emotional trauma that's linked to it? If so, is there another route to get that emotional trauma?
A bruise heals. If I don't do any permanent damage, why should it matter? Is it because of emotional trauma? Let's follow your own logic path here.
Genocide doesn't mean race. That's just one thing it could mean.
You want to go back to sterilizing sociopaths and add to that forcing abortions?
People say mean things IRL too.
And that's not a crime until it gets to the level these girls were at. You implied that this girl should get rid of her Facebook account and her cell phone. Of course she could live without it. But she shouldn't have to. Her freedoms were being trampled on.
Of all places, Slashdot cut short the girl's Facebook post:
Yes IK I bullied REBECCA nd she killed herself but IDGAF.
Not that it makes a huge difference in meaning, but it's a little harsher than implied.
haunt them for the rest of their lives
"Yes IK I bullied REBECCA nd she killed herself but IDGAF." Don't know why the summary cut off the last part of the quote. You can assume they are just coping, but that shouldn't excuse or forgive anything.
Your own particular resilience has no bearing on this issue.
I bet there's a lot of stalked ex-girlfriends out there that wish you would just shut up. It's certainly beyond simple repetitive behavior.
Not murder, but it's still a felony of aggravated stalking because the girl died.