You don't label things harassment, you label the intent of those things.
Okay, but that changes nothing.
It's like a gun
Not at all. When you get shot by a gun, you have no choice but for your body to be damaged. When you see something that is offensive to you (what this boils down to, because whether or not they intended for it to offend you is inconsequential) you can easily just ignore it or move on without anything happening to you. It's your choice how to act.
I suggest you spend some time figuring out what harassment actually is too. It is not you all the sudden being offended or disliking something.
But that is exactly what the law boils down to. "I don't like harassment, and if people say things to others with the intent of emotionally harming them, then they must be stopped!" In other words, they don't like harassment, so anything deemed as harassment must be stopped (according to them). Also, there is no magical way to accurately guess someone's intent, even if they do something repeatedly.
ME calling you all the time and cussing you out would be.
And it changes nothing. Repeatedly saying something does not change the fact that what you are saying is speech. The ones who can't handle mere words/images/videos probably won't last long in this world (or at least, they won't be emotionally well). I'm certainly not in favor of helping them. Not in the least.
I didn't ever say that words and images that offend people was a form of harassment
I didn't say that you did.
i said it was harassment using those forms of communication.
Label things that you don't like as "harassment" and suddenly it's "bad" and should be stopped.
One is innocent, and the other is malicious by design.
Except that the end result is the same: "I don't like images or words whose intent is so harm others. Therefore, they should be banned!"
It just comes down to not liking them, even if they don't do any real kind of harm that a person can't prevent by just being strong-minded. I see no reason that people should get in trouble because you don't like what they said on the phone (which is what it seemingly comes down to) or somewhere else. If there's no way to block them, then that is a problem with the device.
The law requires that the image be intended to cause harm
And how can they prove that? "It's obvious" isn't enough proof for me. Not only that, but it amounts to the same thing: "I don't like images that are specifically designed to cause offense to people. Therefore, people should be banned from sending them!"
Words and images! How terrible. Better ban the ones that offend certain people immediately and label them as "harassment" while pretending that they aren't speech.
Images are hardwired to memory upon site if they are disturbing enough.
"Disturbing" is subjective. Anyone can be disturbed or offended by virtually anything. If images/text/videos offend someone so much that it "ruins" their life or something, then that is simply too bad. Not much can be done for such fragile people (except for keeping them closed off from the rest of the world).
Most people with your view just want to scream censorship which is just silly when the truth is that these things should be leagle but some level of resonable restraint in preventing accidental viewing is not unresonable to ask for.
You said yourself that the opinion changes from person to person. How are they supposed to know what will and what won't offend people? Why even waste time on something like that? Just deal with the 'offensive' things.
I'm going to disagree here. If someone wants to put something in their body that harms them, I couldn't care less. Likewise, if someone wants to sell drugs so that people can accomplish that goal, I don't care as long as they aren't doing anything that I would consider "bad" (like murder or actual robbery).
Also, how do the courts even determine of the website is "mostly" used for copyright infringement? I certainly hope that they are looking at every single torrent file on the website and weight the illegal ones against the legal ones to find this out. Otherwise they haven't actually proven it. Or do they do it some other way?
I agree. I wish supporters of file sharing would stop using such silly arguments. It's clear that the courts no longer care if the content is directly hosted on their websites or not.
this logic does not apply to gun manufacturers, because guns are mostly used by law enforcement and army and not to commit murder and robbery.
Huh? Yes, they do. It just depends on your perspective. But even from the average American's point of view, there have been times when they have indeed murdered innocents.
It doesn't apply to gun manufacturers because the ones who made the guns didn't commit the crimes.
It's certainly not good due to high non-renewable resource consumption. We'll have to start using renewable resources and find a way to obtain food more efficiently (unless we want lots of people to starve, which they already are). The summary says that humans are not stupid, but I disagree. I think that they're stupid for filling up the planet with their useless offspring instead of helping keep the population down so that we don't have so many people dying due to starvation (which isn't necessarily caused by overpopulation).
The fact that a few other places are attempting to imitate us does not make what we are doing good. It could mean that they are making a mistake (however unlikely such a huge mistake is), or even that it is simply better than their current educational system (which doesn't necessarily make ours good).
If it helps someone learn what they need, then that is good. However, far too many employers seem to instantly decide not to hire someone merely because they didn't go to a college (apparently, anyway). Having gone to a college does not necessarily mean that you know what you're doing, and as such, I think it is a good idea to make applicants demonstrate their knowledge anyway. Especially for smaller businesses that don't have hundreds of job applications at once. It may still be possible even then, but I'm not sure how.
Lack of life experience. Making decisions without knowing (firsthand) the consequences.
Those things, if most people even have them at all, do not seem to aid them. How are you sure that they don't just have a different opinion than you? Also, how can you even be sure that most teenagers can't know the consequences of their actions? Unless a specific study tested most of them, this would be difficult to state as a fact, even if their brains are still developing (which doesn't imply that they can't do what you mentioned at all). I don't think it would mess up the already terrible voting system if minors could vote, anyway.
Plenty of adults are impulsive and do things that I would deem foolish, even if teenagers do them slightly more. I guess I just don't have much faith in the human race as a whole.
maybe with knowledge gained during the class, then i thinks its ok to suspend him/her.
Well, I disagree. I think that that should only happen if it was physical and it happened in school. I feel it's not their place to punish people for things done outside of school, especially for something as trivial as insulting someone over the internet. There are already other authority figures who can do that if need be.
Things which get overly in the way of that, or even contradict the second goals should be prevented on the long term.
Really? What if someone, for example, merely mentions that they are an atheist, someone takes offense to that, and it gets "overly in the way"? People could take offense to nearly anything and get upset about it, but that's their own choice.
I really don't understand why the voting age is so high (why it was made that way in the first place). Uninformed decisions? People of all ages seemingly do that all the time. Most of them, from my perspective. Of course, they aren't objectively wrong, either (which is why I don't understand the concern).
nobody should be forced to sit besides somebody bullying him at facebook
Forced? Maybe not. Perhaps they should move then to another seat. But unless the bullying is happening at school (and it's more than mere words), I think taking action would be idiotic.
Where can i find cartoons made by lunatic assassins?
Even if they existed, that wouldn't do much good. Correlation does not equal causation. Also, joking about death or anything that lots of humans don't like clearly makes you a lunatic who is at high risk of participating in a school shooting.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't label things harassment, you label the intent of those things.
Okay, but that changes nothing.
It's like a gun
Not at all. When you get shot by a gun, you have no choice but for your body to be damaged. When you see something that is offensive to you (what this boils down to, because whether or not they intended for it to offend you is inconsequential) you can easily just ignore it or move on without anything happening to you. It's your choice how to act.
I suggest you spend some time figuring out what harassment actually is too. It is not you all the sudden being offended or disliking something.
But that is exactly what the law boils down to. "I don't like harassment, and if people say things to others with the intent of emotionally harming them, then they must be stopped!" In other words, they don't like harassment, so anything deemed as harassment must be stopped (according to them). Also, there is no magical way to accurately guess someone's intent, even if they do something repeatedly.
ME calling you all the time and cussing you out would be.
And it changes nothing. Repeatedly saying something does not change the fact that what you are saying is speech. The ones who can't handle mere words/images/videos probably won't last long in this world (or at least, they won't be emotionally well). I'm certainly not in favor of helping them. Not in the least.
I didn't ever say that words and images that offend people was a form of harassment
I didn't say that you did.
i said it was harassment using those forms of communication.
Label things that you don't like as "harassment" and suddenly it's "bad" and should be stopped.
One is innocent, and the other is malicious by design.
Except that the end result is the same: "I don't like images or words whose intent is so harm others. Therefore, they should be banned!"
It just comes down to not liking them, even if they don't do any real kind of harm that a person can't prevent by just being strong-minded. I see no reason that people should get in trouble because you don't like what they said on the phone (which is what it seemingly comes down to) or somewhere else. If there's no way to block them, then that is a problem with the device.
Yeah, but both sides are making claims
It looks like he just asked for a citation.
and both sides are disavowing any responsibility to meet any burden of proof.
Neither of them said anything about doing that.
The law requires that the image be intended to cause harm
And how can they prove that? "It's obvious" isn't enough proof for me. Not only that, but it amounts to the same thing: "I don't like images that are specifically designed to cause offense to people. Therefore, people should be banned from sending them!"
Words and images! How terrible. Better ban the ones that offend certain people immediately and label them as "harassment" while pretending that they aren't speech.
Images are hardwired to memory upon site if they are disturbing enough.
"Disturbing" is subjective. Anyone can be disturbed or offended by virtually anything. If images/text/videos offend someone so much that it "ruins" their life or something, then that is simply too bad. Not much can be done for such fragile people (except for keeping them closed off from the rest of the world).
Most people with your view just want to scream censorship which is just silly when the truth is that these things should be leagle but some level of resonable restraint in preventing accidental viewing is not unresonable to ask for.
You said yourself that the opinion changes from person to person. How are they supposed to know what will and what won't offend people? Why even waste time on something like that? Just deal with the 'offensive' things.
You're probably right. I just meant that countries like these ones sometimes do not.
drug dealers
I'm going to disagree here. If someone wants to put something in their body that harms them, I couldn't care less. Likewise, if someone wants to sell drugs so that people can accomplish that goal, I don't care as long as they aren't doing anything that I would consider "bad" (like murder or actual robbery).
Also, how do the courts even determine of the website is "mostly" used for copyright infringement? I certainly hope that they are looking at every single torrent file on the website and weight the illegal ones against the legal ones to find this out. Otherwise they haven't actually proven it. Or do they do it some other way?
I agree. I wish supporters of file sharing would stop using such silly arguments. It's clear that the courts no longer care if the content is directly hosted on their websites or not.
this logic does not apply to gun manufacturers, because guns are mostly used by law enforcement and army and not to commit murder and robbery.
Huh? Yes, they do. It just depends on your perspective. But even from the average American's point of view, there have been times when they have indeed murdered innocents.
It doesn't apply to gun manufacturers because the ones who made the guns didn't commit the crimes.
Potential profit is... potentially being lost! Better raid those responsible because this should be high priority right here!
It's certainly not good due to high non-renewable resource consumption. We'll have to start using renewable resources and find a way to obtain food more efficiently (unless we want lots of people to starve, which they already are). The summary says that humans are not stupid, but I disagree. I think that they're stupid for filling up the planet with their useless offspring instead of helping keep the population down so that we don't have so many people dying due to starvation (which isn't necessarily caused by overpopulation).
With a bachelors degree you make about 1.9 times as much as someone with a high school diploma.
That depends on the employer.
The fact that a few other places are attempting to imitate us does not make what we are doing good. It could mean that they are making a mistake (however unlikely such a huge mistake is), or even that it is simply better than their current educational system (which doesn't necessarily make ours good).
If it helps someone learn what they need, then that is good. However, far too many employers seem to instantly decide not to hire someone merely because they didn't go to a college (apparently, anyway). Having gone to a college does not necessarily mean that you know what you're doing, and as such, I think it is a good idea to make applicants demonstrate their knowledge anyway. Especially for smaller businesses that don't have hundreds of job applications at once. It may still be possible even then, but I'm not sure how.
Lack of life experience. Making decisions without knowing (firsthand) the consequences.
Those things, if most people even have them at all, do not seem to aid them. How are you sure that they don't just have a different opinion than you? Also, how can you even be sure that most teenagers can't know the consequences of their actions? Unless a specific study tested most of them, this would be difficult to state as a fact, even if their brains are still developing (which doesn't imply that they can't do what you mentioned at all). I don't think it would mess up the already terrible voting system if minors could vote, anyway.
Plenty of adults are impulsive and do things that I would deem foolish, even if teenagers do them slightly more. I guess I just don't have much faith in the human race as a whole.
maybe with knowledge gained during the class, then i thinks its ok to suspend him/her.
Well, I disagree. I think that that should only happen if it was physical and it happened in school. I feel it's not their place to punish people for things done outside of school, especially for something as trivial as insulting someone over the internet. There are already other authority figures who can do that if need be.
Things which get overly in the way of that, or even contradict the second goals should be prevented on the long term.
Really? What if someone, for example, merely mentions that they are an atheist, someone takes offense to that, and it gets "overly in the way"? People could take offense to nearly anything and get upset about it, but that's their own choice.
voting
I really don't understand why the voting age is so high (why it was made that way in the first place). Uninformed decisions? People of all ages seemingly do that all the time. Most of them, from my perspective. Of course, they aren't objectively wrong, either (which is why I don't understand the concern).
I think they really should learn to use words like "most" or "some."
nobody should be forced to sit besides somebody bullying him at facebook
Forced? Maybe not. Perhaps they should move then to another seat. But unless the bullying is happening at school (and it's more than mere words), I think taking action would be idiotic.
Where can i find cartoons made by lunatic assassins?
Even if they existed, that wouldn't do much good. Correlation does not equal causation. Also, joking about death or anything that lots of humans don't like clearly makes you a lunatic who is at high risk of participating in a school shooting.
Or maybe certain people just have a different sense of humor than you. It is, after all, opinionated.
1. We have censorship of "speech you don't like" as well, so seriously we need to STFU about "free speech".
And? That does not mean that free speech does not mean what he says. You don't have to agree with limitations upon free speech, you know.
People are looking at duke 3d through the rose colored glasses
Or maybe they truly like it, since that's just an opinion anyway.
Hypocrisy - look it up.
Such a logically valid argument.