You don't even need to have something to hide; you just need to anger the wrong people at the wrong time. What the government thinks is 'bad' is not necessarily what you think is 'bad,' so you're always in danger, no matter how unimportant you believe yourself to be.
we must recognize the fact that through this system he used that he both made money, and benefited mankind through his shops and his laboratories where his employees advanced human knowledge.
Why must we recognize that? Do you have evidence to suggest that he wouldn't have made a similar or greater amount of money in a system with no patents? As far as I know, no such evidence exists; if we required proof that a policy is effective before we could implement it, patent/copyright laws would be long gone by now.
I'm not an anarchist, but the fact remains that the government often acts as nothing more than a group of thugs. From the drug war to the TSA to the NSA, our government is corrupt, and you seem to like it that way, since you don't seem to care about the first amendment in the least (I'm not saying you don't seem to care about what some judge ruled was in the first amendment, but about the first amendment itself.).
It was because it was all done in such a way to make them see it and the implications that made.
There was literally nothing. This was a non-issue until the police got involved. The only bullies here were the government thugs, as usual.
Harassment is - yes - passing a threshold. If you were an ex-boyfriend and you called your ex-girlfriend, that's just a phone call. If you call every night at the same time for weeks, that's harassment.
Again, whether or not it's harassment has little to do with whether pieces of garbage from the government should ruin people's lives.
A boss paying a single sexual compliment to his employee can be considered harassment. Shouldn't always be, but can be.
And if that results in the boss being punished by the government, that is absolute garbage.
Physical violence isn't usually OK. At some point, verbal abuse crosses a line and I don't see a problem with having a structure in place to deal with it.
Then you don't really care about freedom of speech. Not a surprise, but don't pretend otherwise.
Yes, it's true that the line can start to move down a slippery slope - and it's part of our responsibility as citizens to ensure that doesn't happen.
There doesn't need to be a slippery slope; the restrictions you suggest are bad enough as it is.
Well, I'll just have to reread the first amendment, then.
That said, "harassment," to you, is clearly nothing more than speech you don't like repeated more than you'd like, or just the former. Have your 'safety' (I'm not sure how the government bullying some kid who killed people in a video game will make you safe, but whatever.), but move to a country that doesn't claim to be the land of the free and the home of the brave that's foolish enough to arrest a kid for killing people in a game.
Anyway, it's clear that you can't handle having freedom, but note that other people can before you go off and try to ruin whatever country you're in even further. It is your attitude that leads to nonsense like the TSA, and not one of the supporters of this sort of nonsense even cares about the constitution.
Except the availability of certain rooms, I didn't lose anything in your scenario. I don't see the point of this; there's a solution to that problem, and it's to not allow people to stop people from using rooms in your hotel (i.e. your private property, not someone else's) unless they've bought access from you.
You don't think anything qualifies as harassment, do you?
False. But there are certain types of harassment that I believe should be tolerated, and harassment dealing with speech is one of them. It may be harassment of a sort to constantly spew forth verbal abuse directed at a certain person, but I would not want someone to be arrested over that.
Do you equate lawlessness with freedom?
In a way, yes. If you mean the complete absence of any laws whatsoever, then maybe, but that's not what I desire.
Why do people like you condone atrocities like this?
Because I believe that freedom is more important than safety. Because I believe that we shouldn't punish everyone for the actions of a few. Because I have principles; unlike you. And I don't even own a gun.
Have fun pointlessly restricting your own activities out of fear that some idiot in a position of power could take offense to just about anything you do.
I don't think killing people in a game and making videos about (or what have you) is harassment, but even if it were, people who believe something should be done about it are anti-freedom. Why do you value safety over freedom? Why are you a cheerleader for the government? All valid questions.
If it was clear that his intent was for the classmates to see him playing the game, it could easily be determined as a threat or harassment/bullying
A threat? No. Harassment/bullying? Not really. But even if it were either of those things, if you want someone to be punished for such a thing, you're an oversensitive piece of trash for caring about it, and probably hate freedom.
Sure it is. It infringes upon fundamental rights, so I don't think any such policy (that is, if the government is trying to implement it) should ever be allowed.
and how it may or may not be beneficial to society as a whole.
Irrelevant. Individual liberties are not necessarily for the convenience of society as a whole, but for the individual. I'm none too fond of tyranny of the majority.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't have to torture you to make your life miserable.
Of course not, but I'm not the one tying people down with laws, now am I?
You don't even need to have something to hide; you just need to anger the wrong people at the wrong time. What the government thinks is 'bad' is not necessarily what you think is 'bad,' so you're always in danger, no matter how unimportant you believe yourself to be.
I think we can safely say Godwin's Law is pretty much invalidated at this point as well when discussing the federal government.
How can Godwin's Law be invalidated when discussing the federal government? That doesn't make any sense to me.
we must recognize the fact that through this system he used that he both made money, and benefited mankind through his shops and his laboratories where his employees advanced human knowledge.
Why must we recognize that? Do you have evidence to suggest that he wouldn't have made a similar or greater amount of money in a system with no patents? As far as I know, no such evidence exists; if we required proof that a policy is effective before we could implement it, patent/copyright laws would be long gone by now.
I'm not an anarchist, but the fact remains that the government often acts as nothing more than a group of thugs. From the drug war to the TSA to the NSA, our government is corrupt, and you seem to like it that way, since you don't seem to care about the first amendment in the least (I'm not saying you don't seem to care about what some judge ruled was in the first amendment, but about the first amendment itself.).
It was because it was all done in such a way to make them see it and the implications that made.
There was literally nothing. This was a non-issue until the police got involved. The only bullies here were the government thugs, as usual.
Harassment is - yes - passing a threshold. If you were an ex-boyfriend and you called your ex-girlfriend, that's just a phone call. If you call every night at the same time for weeks, that's harassment.
Again, whether or not it's harassment has little to do with whether pieces of garbage from the government should ruin people's lives.
A boss paying a single sexual compliment to his employee can be considered harassment. Shouldn't always be, but can be.
And if that results in the boss being punished by the government, that is absolute garbage.
Physical violence isn't usually OK. At some point, verbal abuse crosses a line and I don't see a problem with having a structure in place to deal with it.
Then you don't really care about freedom of speech. Not a surprise, but don't pretend otherwise.
Yes, it's true that the line can start to move down a slippery slope - and it's part of our responsibility as citizens to ensure that doesn't happen.
There doesn't need to be a slippery slope; the restrictions you suggest are bad enough as it is.
You're becoming an eyesore, you insolent insect.
Freedom of speech never included harassment
Well, I'll just have to reread the first amendment, then.
That said, "harassment," to you, is clearly nothing more than speech you don't like repeated more than you'd like, or just the former. Have your 'safety' (I'm not sure how the government bullying some kid who killed people in a video game will make you safe, but whatever.), but move to a country that doesn't claim to be the land of the free and the home of the brave that's foolish enough to arrest a kid for killing people in a game.
Anyway, it's clear that you can't handle having freedom, but note that other people can before you go off and try to ruin whatever country you're in even further. It is your attitude that leads to nonsense like the TSA, and not one of the supporters of this sort of nonsense even cares about the constitution.
And I feel more free if my safety is somewhat guaranteed at a good level
It already is, laws against harassment or no. Killing someone in a video or game harms no one, except perhaps oversensitive egos.
And that those restrictions in law aren't really restrictions to decent people.
"Decent" is subjective, but they're restrictions on everyone.
Except the availability of certain rooms, I didn't lose anything in your scenario. I don't see the point of this; there's a solution to that problem, and it's to not allow people to stop people from using rooms in your hotel (i.e. your private property, not someone else's) unless they've bought access from you.
Damn! You got me. How did you ever figure out my secret plans?
You don't think anything qualifies as harassment, do you?
False. But there are certain types of harassment that I believe should be tolerated, and harassment dealing with speech is one of them. It may be harassment of a sort to constantly spew forth verbal abuse directed at a certain person, but I would not want someone to be arrested over that.
Do you equate lawlessness with freedom?
In a way, yes. If you mean the complete absence of any laws whatsoever, then maybe, but that's not what I desire.
Why do people like you condone atrocities like this?
Because I believe that freedom is more important than safety. Because I believe that we shouldn't punish everyone for the actions of a few. Because I have principles; unlike you. And I don't even own a gun.
Well, don't do that then.
Geez, that was easy.
Have fun pointlessly restricting your own activities out of fear that some idiot in a position of power could take offense to just about anything you do.
I don't think killing people in a game and making videos about (or what have you) is harassment, but even if it were, people who believe something should be done about it are anti-freedom. Why do you value safety over freedom? Why are you a cheerleader for the government? All valid questions.
But as with most things in life the best balance is probably somewhere in between.
Who decided that? You can only speak for yourself.
Or we could simply... stop caring. It's not that big of a deal that certain people create disposable accounts.
Also, I know this will confuse your fragile mind, but video games, videos, and the like are, in fact, not reality. Now, vanish.
If it was clear that his intent was for the classmates to see him playing the game, it could easily be determined as a threat or harassment/bullying
A threat? No. Harassment/bullying? Not really. But even if it were either of those things, if you want someone to be punished for such a thing, you're an oversensitive piece of trash for caring about it, and probably hate freedom.
Sure it is. It infringes upon fundamental rights, so I don't think any such policy (that is, if the government is trying to implement it) should ever be allowed.
and how it may or may not be beneficial to society as a whole.
Irrelevant. Individual liberties are not necessarily for the convenience of society as a whole, but for the individual. I'm none too fond of tyranny of the majority.
Also, if you resort to violence because someone said something that you don't care for, that is your problem and no one else's.
There are exceptions to first amendment protections.
Wrong. Those exceptions do not exist in the first amendment; some judges simply wrote those in with invisible ink.
Simply put, you don't.
Oh, and saying that must spy on everyone because they might be planning to attack us isn't going to convince me of a single thing.