for a select few major players in the rarefied business of media distribution, circa 1988
now, any pimply faced teenager with a net connection has more distribution power than time warner and bertelsmann in 1988. but the law hasn't changed to reflect that technological change in last 20 years
now, those dying business powers wish to use the laws meant for their private little club to impose their will on a billion teenagers. a billion poor meda hungry teenagers with obfuscation, encryption, spoofing, etc., at their disposal
"So, rendering humanitarian aid gives you jurisdiction over an area?"
actually, yes it does. you are assuming that under normal circumstances, the aid given would have been provided via some other means, that some other capacity existed to render that aid
so the uk renders assistance to a peruvian freighter in the english channel, or to a french island in the english channel when french aid is otherwise occupied or too far away, then the uk does not get to own that freighter or that island
but you are talking about an entity which was actually constructed by the british, and abandoned. as such, it does get automatic respect of statehood, just because there are some squatters on it who claim it so
except: no need for actors to go back to the theatre. movie houses are doing bang up business. the death of the movie house was predicted because of tv, and the business still grew. vcr, dvd, internet: it was all supposed to kill movie houses. every year the business does bigger business. i think its psychological. why do people go to church instead of receive spiritual enlightenment at home by themselves? despite babies and cell phones, i think people actually like the laughs and oohs fo the crowds around them, it enhances the experience
and artists, even if they got $0 from their efforts, will still do it for the fame, and the access to chicks
and there's always ancillary business. if jk rowling made $0 from books, she'd still make millions from cutting deals with hollywood, and action figures, speaking engagements, etc. all sorts of ancillary business
guess what: no, you are not allowed to sit on your ass for the rest of your life and derive profit for that
what you are entitled to is to work, like the rest of us, for a some return on some daily effort
of course, the sit on your ass for the rest of your life bullshit is exactly what current law dictates. andd current law is fundamentally broken. its unenforceable
creators, you need to get over that misconception right now, because regardless of whatever the law says, the technology has already broken the law, written decades ago. its not 1988. with scratchy vcr tapes and muddy mixtapes and washed out xeroxes. digital copying and the internet fundamentally changes the landscape. every teenager in their basement has more distribution reach than time warner and bertelsmann in 1988. anyone, anywhere, can have a copy of whatever the hell they want, for free, with complete integrity and clarity, anytime they damn well please
creators: you deserve some protection, but not the sitting on your ass for life+70 anymore. its not a matter of what the law says. its a matter fo what is enforceable, and that shit is just not enforceable anymore
besides, creators, the law never benefitted you in the first place, it always benefitted the distributors. its always been the biggest lie that copyright and ip is for creators. its for distributors
ip law is over. the internet killed it. get used to it, it will only accelerate, and a whool enew generation lives in a culture now where none of ip law is respected, or should be respected. ip law was always meant as a contrite genetleman's agreement between large industry players. it was never meant, and is impossible to apply to, the random kid on the street
#1: a two party system forces the parties to pander to the middle. this is a good thing. multiparty systems cause the parties to pander to their various fringe groups. in other words, a two party syste is superior for retaining conformity between the beliefs of the population and the beliefs of thos ein control
#2: ask a german how wonderful a multipary system is: greens getting in bed with ultranationalists in order to retain party in coalition governments, completely abandoning all ideological consistency, just for a craven grasp at power. this is superior? really?
it's a hopelessly stupid idealist, learning for the first time that politics, more than anything else, is a game for realists
how does one get into power and stay in power? did you ever ask yourself that question? radical change is never the answer to that question, unless you are talking revolution, which is ALWAYS worse than peaceful democratic regime change. yes, i know some suburban skateboarding retards listening to rage against the machine think revolution is cool... go to a country where real revolution takes place. then come tell me how cool revolution is, with the degradation of all aspects of society that accompany that, you pampered coddled child
what are you going to get out of obama? CHANGE. EXACTLY AS PROMISED. moderate, incremental, slow change. and if you had the slightest bit of intelligence about how politics really works, you'd be absolutely ecstatic about that
instead, you are hellbent on judging him against the most spastic, cloistered, idealistic fanboy nonsense that exists only in your isolated head
we talk of people who are socially retarded. well we also have a very real quatity of political retards in this world, utterly incapable of understanding the most fundamental concepts of politics and reality, but all too happy to open their loud, ignorantly idealistic mouths
and a bully is also a minor, and therefore can't be held responsible
duh
if you saw a 30 year old man go into a playground and verbally bully 13 year olds, do you think that's gee, i dunno, slightly different, oh great swami?
"You're absolutely retarded if you think for one second that age is the single difference that makes this a federal case."
age is the single difference that makes this a federal case
really, fucktard
an adult mind is not a child's mind. an adult mind can bring to bear all sorts of experience and resources and social and psychological tricks to run circles around a child
here's a thought experiment for you: why is pedophilia wrong? because a child can't informed consent to sex with an adult. ok adults can consent to other adults, and children can fumble around in the dark innocently. with me so far? an adult having sex with a child is flat out criminal, for obvious reasons (well, obvious to all except you)
in a democracy, you don't get to choose the candidate who fits your beliefs exactly, because such a candidate would, by definition of appealing so tightly to you, therefore appeal to only a small subset of society, and therefore be unelectable
at BEST you get a candidate that appeals to you very weakly. because that candidate must cover as many commonalities of belief as possible in order to get elected
and this is a GOOD thing: a government should closely adhere to the center of society, not to its various fringe groups. so if you are severely disappointed in obama, you're a fool, for judging him against absurd standards that will never, ever be met in reality
in a democracy, you get a choice betwen the candidate who is slightly less evil than the other. that's all you EVER will get to choose from. and that is a sign of a HEALTHY society. meanwhile, when someone is elected who appeals to a small group of people ecstatically, something has failed, and society will suffer for that, for this candidate most certainly doesn't appeal to the majority of society he or see is supposed to lead. got that?:
large appeal to small group != small appeal to large group. large appeal to small group is BAD for society. small appeal to large group is GOOD for society
some of you need to focus on that, and let the implications of that sink in for how you value and judge your leaders
all you could ever hope to do is tug the administration in power SLIGHTLY in the direction of your beliefs. anyone who believed barack obama was going to be some messiah of radical change is frankly, an idiot
i will tell you right now with 100% certainty what you are going to get out of the obama administration: TINY incremental steps away from the bush administration bullshit. and YOU ARE GOING TO LIKE IT, because that is the best you could ever possibly get in reality, as opposed to the fantasies in your head, which some of you seem hellbent on judging your government against. absurd
because the alternative is a continuation of the bush years bullshit. that's worse, right? then pleasde remember that when you judge
1. she was an adult preying on a minor (and she knew that) 2. she knew the minor had emotional problems 3. she systematically attacked and undermined the girls' confidence over a longterm period purposefully and with malicious intent
none of those 3 things are anywhere remotely near your whoopie cushion scenario
you confuse what this woman did with a whoopie cushion on a chair? really? do you confuse murder with not washing your hands after peeing? do you confuse rape with picking your nose?
you're an idiot. not even remotely similar, this case has absolutely zero grounds for coming to the spastic panicky conclusions you come to
"if she didn't want to get raped, why did she wear that tight skirt?"
that's basically the same thing you wrote
parents let their kids have a little privacy, to develop their own identity. if suicide comes out of that, how the hell can you blame the parents for that? and if they knew she was depressed, don't you think social contact helps for depression? and if so, how could any parent have foreseen a psychopath playing mindgames with her online, like what happened?
i have to be frank with you: your attitude of blame the victim, the parents of this poor girl, is rather disgusting. you really need to think long and hard about where accountability and blame falls during a crime: on the criminal. your current attitude, frankly, sucks
you're just a stubborn asshole for not admitting when you've been routed. the radical and creative interpretation of established law is a normal process and a good thing
creative use of the law, in the same state, missouri. using the rico statues to go after the riaa
there's nothing wrong, at all, with using wildly different laws in new and creative ways. it is in fact completely normal. al capone couldn't be gotten at through murder raps and conspiracy, so they got at him through income tax evasion. completely new and radical in its time, now everyday and humdrum
people who commit crimes that are not garden variety must be gotten at in creative ways. don't fear this. there is no slippery slope. the context is extreme, it is a far outlier, any future case that refers to this lori drew case must hew to a similar set of bizarre extenuating circumstances
"Of course laws get used in new circumstances, but you don't just make shit up because you are morally offended by something..."
rephrase:
laws get used in new circumstances... when there is a great outcry of moral offence from all sectors of society
there, fixed it for ya
but please, of course, ignore me, i'm just a silly troll. there's absolutely nothing relevant in what i am trying to say to you. you have it all figured out
zzz
there actually was a time when criminals would get off on technicalities all the time. what happened then was that crime went on the rise, and people became disillusioned by their justice system as they saw dirtbag after dirtbag set free for minor technical quibles. it was the 1970s-1980s, and that's why movies like clint eastwood in dirty harry became popular, and vigilante law enforcement organizations like the guardian angels came into existence. people had no faith in their justice system anymore. and it is the direct result of this mediocre compliance with rote technicalities of the statutues that tyou defend
that era went away of course, when the justice system became more proactive and creative in their application of law. law enforcement does it ALL THE TIME in difficult cases, like this lori drew one
one of the most famous of which is when income tax evasion laws were used against organized crime in the 1920s. this was completely new and creative. but i suppose you support al capone if he says "its not fair, this creative new use of law against me"
and, lo and behold, right up there on front page slashdot, two stories after this one, is a tale of a WILDLY NEW CREATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW:
using rico statutes against the riaa. i absolutely support this. we already know though, of course, that you don't support this at all, right?
so is there anything else i can help you with today? or are you not yet sufficiently satisfied that creative interpretation of law is not only 100% ok, but normal, par for the course, and absolutely expected in the pursuit of justice?
From TFA: "Susan Prouty, a 34-year-old former business client of Lori Drew, said Drew confessed to her that she had created the MySpace profile used to harass Megan. According to Prouty, Drew also admitted writing some of the messages "Josh" sent to the girl."
a police state exerts the will of a political agenda
here we are talking about an affront to basic moral sensibility
complete, utterly, totally fucking unrelated things
furthermore, a law is not a piece of comptuer code, it is made to be interpreted by human beings. a law can be stretched to an extreme, sure, but if it is done in the service of justice, which this case obviously cries out for, then the law is still doing the job it was intended to do
you have this really strange notion of what a law is and its purpose in society. its not a static dead lifeless piece of computer code, its inhabited by, and enforced by, human beings, for the benefit of human beings. what this woman did is an affront on any common sense understanding of right and wrong, and as such, the law is completely appropriate to be used as humanity sees fit to punish this reprehensible person
it doesn't fit the mold of a law exactly? who fucking care? you honestly think that doesn't happen every day when any law is enforced?
ALL laws are interpretted in every single case ever put forth before a court, and ALL cases set forth before a court differ in the particulars and stray from a technical reading of the law.
but if we abide by your mediocre interpretation of what a law is and what it is meant for, just because a case is a little complicated, you are perfectly willing to completely ignore justice
your approach is a path to the breakdown of law and order in society. the courts serves the people in society, and if the people in society see that its laws are not being used in the pursuit of justice, and that instead truly reprehensible people are allowed off on technicalities, they will cease to believe in their courts, and take matters into their own hands, to see tha tjustice is done. and of course, vigiliatism is wrose, but this is exactly what your attitude encourages: a mediocre approach to legality and morality, a complete separation of the two. incredibly stupid
on nov 19, a 19 yo guy committed suicide live on webcam
1,500 people watched, with LOLs and hahaha and "go ahead and do it, faggot"
sometimes, humanity is a pretty heady combination of disgusting and low iq
my disgust is such that i fantasize right now of faking a videofeed of a suicide, tracking the ip of anyone who LOLs at it, finding them, and peeling their skin off with a razor blade. such is my disgust at such utterly fucktarded trolls. finding and doing greivous bodily harm to these assholes is the only wat i feel i can be assuaged
if you give up your humanity for your fellow human beings, aren't you pretty much nullifying our responsibility to respect you, in any way?
"I have let everyone down and I feel as though I will never change or never improve," Biggs apparently wrote in the posting. "I am in love with a girl and I know that I am not good enough for her. I have come to believe that my life has all been meaningless. I keep trying and I keep failing. I have thought about and attempted suicide many times in the past."...
On a blog where Biggs wrote about his suicidal thoughts, which has also since been removed, commenters wrote, "hahaha hahahahha hahahahahah ahhaha." Wired reports that someone else wrote: "Instant Darwinism..." to which a fellow commenter wrote: "f**king a nicely put." Others called the teen a "coward," "faggot" and a "dick."
"and yes another dead person is a small price to pay, for staying away from being a total police state"
ignorant and retarded on so many levels. as if the creation of new law has anything do with a police state. as if your excusing of psychopathic murder is somehow no worse than what goes on in a police state, making you and your attitude worse than what you fear
the facts i read them show her to be the originator of the messages, not the assistant or the daughter. every convicted murderer or rapist likewise wan't there or was tricked in to the crime
but we shall soon see, as the case proceeds in a court of law, won't we?
the moral reprehensibility of what she did obviously has to be punished. the idea of laws is to maintain a well-functioning society. we have laws against rapists, murders, etc., so we can keep these people away form society. this woman is a psychopath. she should not be allowed to be free in society. she has aptly demonstrated she is a danger to others. whatever law exists or does not exist, the moral basis for her punishment is 100% sound
Slashdot Mirror
for a select few major players in the rarefied business of media distribution, circa 1988
now, any pimply faced teenager with a net connection has more distribution power than time warner and bertelsmann in 1988. but the law hasn't changed to reflect that technological change in last 20 years
now, those dying business powers wish to use the laws meant for their private little club to impose their will on a billion teenagers. a billion poor meda hungry teenagers with obfuscation, encryption, spoofing, etc., at their disposal
good luck with that
"So, rendering humanitarian aid gives you jurisdiction over an area?"
actually, yes it does. you are assuming that under normal circumstances, the aid given would have been provided via some other means, that some other capacity existed to render that aid
so the uk renders assistance to a peruvian freighter in the english channel, or to a french island in the english channel when french aid is otherwise occupied or too far away, then the uk does not get to own that freighter or that island
but you are talking about an entity which was actually constructed by the british, and abandoned. as such, it does get automatic respect of statehood, just because there are some squatters on it who claim it so
hosting on a rusty old gun turret in the middle of the english channel isn't exactly a formula for dependability
just find a micronation hostile to the online laws of other nations, like antigua, and host there
absolutely right
except: no need for actors to go back to the theatre. movie houses are doing bang up business. the death of the movie house was predicted because of tv, and the business still grew. vcr, dvd, internet: it was all supposed to kill movie houses. every year the business does bigger business. i think its psychological. why do people go to church instead of receive spiritual enlightenment at home by themselves? despite babies and cell phones, i think people actually like the laughs and oohs fo the crowds around them, it enhances the experience
and artists, even if they got $0 from their efforts, will still do it for the fame, and the access to chicks
and there's always ancillary business. if jk rowling made $0 from books, she'd still make millions from cutting deals with hollywood, and action figures, speaking engagements, etc. all sorts of ancillary business
it should deprive you of rights, because you deprived someone else of theirs (stolen from them, took their life, raped them)
prisoners shouldn't have television, computer access, or cellphones. what is the whole point of incarceration in the first place?
if you write a song
or a book
or a movie
or a game
guess what: no, you are not allowed to sit on your ass for the rest of your life and derive profit for that
what you are entitled to is to work, like the rest of us, for a some return on some daily effort
of course, the sit on your ass for the rest of your life bullshit is exactly what current law dictates. andd current law is fundamentally broken. its unenforceable
creators, you need to get over that misconception right now, because regardless of whatever the law says, the technology has already broken the law, written decades ago. its not 1988. with scratchy vcr tapes and muddy mixtapes and washed out xeroxes. digital copying and the internet fundamentally changes the landscape. every teenager in their basement has more distribution reach than time warner and bertelsmann in 1988. anyone, anywhere, can have a copy of whatever the hell they want, for free, with complete integrity and clarity, anytime they damn well please
creators: you deserve some protection, but not the sitting on your ass for life+70 anymore. its not a matter of what the law says. its a matter fo what is enforceable, and that shit is just not enforceable anymore
besides, creators, the law never benefitted you in the first place, it always benefitted the distributors. its always been the biggest lie that copyright and ip is for creators. its for distributors
ip law is over. the internet killed it. get used to it, it will only accelerate, and a whool enew generation lives in a culture now where none of ip law is respected, or should be respected. ip law was always meant as a contrite genetleman's agreement between large industry players. it was never meant, and is impossible to apply to, the random kid on the street
you're an idiot
#1: a two party system forces the parties to pander to the middle. this is a good thing. multiparty systems cause the parties to pander to their various fringe groups. in other words, a two party syste is superior for retaining conformity between the beliefs of the population and the beliefs of thos ein control
#2: ask a german how wonderful a multipary system is: greens getting in bed with ultranationalists in order to retain party in coalition governments, completely abandoning all ideological consistency, just for a craven grasp at power. this is superior? really?
k5 requires no need to appeal to coherence, because there is none over there
it's a hopelessly stupid idealist, learning for the first time that politics, more than anything else, is a game for realists
how does one get into power and stay in power? did you ever ask yourself that question? radical change is never the answer to that question, unless you are talking revolution, which is ALWAYS worse than peaceful democratic regime change. yes, i know some suburban skateboarding retards listening to rage against the machine think revolution is cool... go to a country where real revolution takes place. then come tell me how cool revolution is, with the degradation of all aspects of society that accompany that, you pampered coddled child
what are you going to get out of obama? CHANGE. EXACTLY AS PROMISED. moderate, incremental, slow change. and if you had the slightest bit of intelligence about how politics really works, you'd be absolutely ecstatic about that
instead, you are hellbent on judging him against the most spastic, cloistered, idealistic fanboy nonsense that exists only in your isolated head
we talk of people who are socially retarded. well we also have a very real quatity of political retards in this world, utterly incapable of understanding the most fundamental concepts of politics and reality, but all too happy to open their loud, ignorantly idealistic mouths
and a bully is also a minor, and therefore can't be held responsible
duh
if you saw a 30 year old man go into a playground and verbally bully 13 year olds, do you think that's gee, i dunno, slightly different, oh great swami?
"You're absolutely retarded if you think for one second that age is the single difference that makes this a federal case."
age is the single difference that makes this a federal case
really, fucktard
an adult mind is not a child's mind. an adult mind can bring to bear all sorts of experience and resources and social and psychological tricks to run circles around a child
here's a thought experiment for you: why is pedophilia wrong? because a child can't informed consent to sex with an adult. ok adults can consent to other adults, and children can fumble around in the dark innocently. with me so far? an adult having sex with a child is flat out criminal, for obvious reasons (well, obvious to all except you)
now, you understand why age is a factor
in a democracy, you don't get to choose the candidate who fits your beliefs exactly, because such a candidate would, by definition of appealing so tightly to you, therefore appeal to only a small subset of society, and therefore be unelectable
at BEST you get a candidate that appeals to you very weakly. because that candidate must cover as many commonalities of belief as possible in order to get elected
and this is a GOOD thing: a government should closely adhere to the center of society, not to its various fringe groups. so if you are severely disappointed in obama, you're a fool, for judging him against absurd standards that will never, ever be met in reality
in a democracy, you get a choice betwen the candidate who is slightly less evil than the other. that's all you EVER will get to choose from. and that is a sign of a HEALTHY society. meanwhile, when someone is elected who appeals to a small group of people ecstatically, something has failed, and society will suffer for that, for this candidate most certainly doesn't appeal to the majority of society he or see is supposed to lead. got that?:
large appeal to small group != small appeal to large group. large appeal to small group is BAD for society. small appeal to large group is GOOD for society
some of you need to focus on that, and let the implications of that sink in for how you value and judge your leaders
all you could ever hope to do is tug the administration in power SLIGHTLY in the direction of your beliefs. anyone who believed barack obama was going to be some messiah of radical change is frankly, an idiot
i will tell you right now with 100% certainty what you are going to get out of the obama administration: TINY incremental steps away from the bush administration bullshit. and YOU ARE GOING TO LIKE IT, because that is the best you could ever possibly get in reality, as opposed to the fantasies in your head, which some of you seem hellbent on judging your government against. absurd
because the alternative is a continuation of the bush years bullshit. that's worse, right? then pleasde remember that when you judge
1. she was an adult preying on a minor (and she knew that)
2. she knew the minor had emotional problems
3. she systematically attacked and undermined the girls' confidence over a longterm period purposefully and with malicious intent
none of those 3 things are anywhere remotely near your whoopie cushion scenario
you confuse what this woman did with a whoopie cushion on a chair? really? do you confuse murder with not washing your hands after peeing? do you confuse rape with picking your nose?
you're an idiot. not even remotely similar, this case has absolutely zero grounds for coming to the spastic panicky conclusions you come to
sedimentary
metamorphic
igneous
no, wait...
prokaryotes
eukaryotes
viruses
got it ;-)
"if she didn't want to get raped, why did she wear that tight skirt?"
that's basically the same thing you wrote
parents let their kids have a little privacy, to develop their own identity. if suicide comes out of that, how the hell can you blame the parents for that? and if they knew she was depressed, don't you think social contact helps for depression? and if so, how could any parent have foreseen a psychopath playing mindgames with her online, like what happened?
i have to be frank with you: your attitude of blame the victim, the parents of this poor girl, is rather disgusting. you really need to think long and hard about where accountability and blame falls during a crime: on the criminal. your current attitude, frankly, sucks
its a unique, exotic case
you're just a stubborn asshole for not admitting when you've been routed. the radical and creative interpretation of established law is a normal process and a good thing
adios, you lose
look, two stories below this one:
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/21/1644213
creative use of the law, in the same state, missouri. using the rico statues to go after the riaa
there's nothing wrong, at all, with using wildly different laws in new and creative ways. it is in fact completely normal. al capone couldn't be gotten at through murder raps and conspiracy, so they got at him through income tax evasion. completely new and radical in its time, now everyday and humdrum
people who commit crimes that are not garden variety must be gotten at in creative ways. don't fear this. there is no slippery slope. the context is extreme, it is a far outlier, any future case that refers to this lori drew case must hew to a similar set of bizarre extenuating circumstances
"Of course laws get used in new circumstances, but you don't just make shit up because you are morally offended by something..."
rephrase:
laws get used in new circumstances... when there is a great outcry of moral offence from all sectors of society
there, fixed it for ya
but please, of course, ignore me, i'm just a silly troll. there's absolutely nothing relevant in what i am trying to say to you. you have it all figured out
zzz
there actually was a time when criminals would get off on technicalities all the time. what happened then was that crime went on the rise, and people became disillusioned by their justice system as they saw dirtbag after dirtbag set free for minor technical quibles. it was the 1970s-1980s, and that's why movies like clint eastwood in dirty harry became popular, and vigilante law enforcement organizations like the guardian angels came into existence. people had no faith in their justice system anymore. and it is the direct result of this mediocre compliance with rote technicalities of the statutues that tyou defend
that era went away of course, when the justice system became more proactive and creative in their application of law. law enforcement does it ALL THE TIME in difficult cases, like this lori drew one
one of the most famous of which is when income tax evasion laws were used against organized crime in the 1920s. this was completely new and creative. but i suppose you support al capone if he says "its not fair, this creative new use of law against me"
and, lo and behold, right up there on front page slashdot, two stories after this one, is a tale of a WILDLY NEW CREATIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW:
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/21/1644213
using rico statutes against the riaa. i absolutely support this. we already know though, of course, that you don't support this at all, right?
so is there anything else i can help you with today? or are you not yet sufficiently satisfied that creative interpretation of law is not only 100% ok, but normal, par for the course, and absolutely expected in the pursuit of justice?
fucking retard
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1037825&cid=25848195
a police state exerts the will of a political agenda
here we are talking about an affront to basic moral sensibility
complete, utterly, totally fucking unrelated things
furthermore, a law is not a piece of comptuer code, it is made to be interpreted by human beings. a law can be stretched to an extreme, sure, but if it is done in the service of justice, which this case obviously cries out for, then the law is still doing the job it was intended to do
you have this really strange notion of what a law is and its purpose in society. its not a static dead lifeless piece of computer code, its inhabited by, and enforced by, human beings, for the benefit of human beings. what this woman did is an affront on any common sense understanding of right and wrong, and as such, the law is completely appropriate to be used as humanity sees fit to punish this reprehensible person
it doesn't fit the mold of a law exactly? who fucking care? you honestly think that doesn't happen every day when any law is enforced?
ALL laws are interpretted in every single case ever put forth before a court, and ALL cases set forth before a court differ in the particulars and stray from a technical reading of the law.
but if we abide by your mediocre interpretation of what a law is and what it is meant for, just because a case is a little complicated, you are perfectly willing to completely ignore justice
your approach is a path to the breakdown of law and order in society. the courts serves the people in society, and if the people in society see that its laws are not being used in the pursuit of justice, and that instead truly reprehensible people are allowed off on technicalities, they will cease to believe in their courts, and take matters into their own hands, to see tha tjustice is done. and of course, vigiliatism is wrose, but this is exactly what your attitude encourages: a mediocre approach to legality and morality, a complete separation of the two. incredibly stupid
on nov 19, a 19 yo guy committed suicide live on webcam
1,500 people watched, with LOLs and hahaha and "go ahead and do it, faggot"
sometimes, humanity is a pretty heady combination of disgusting and low iq
my disgust is such that i fantasize right now of faking a videofeed of a suicide, tracking the ip of anyone who LOLs at it, finding them, and peeling their skin off with a razor blade. such is my disgust at such utterly fucktarded trolls. finding and doing greivous bodily harm to these assholes is the only wat i feel i can be assuaged
if you give up your humanity for your fellow human beings, aren't you pretty much nullifying our responsibility to respect you, in any way?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5203176.ece
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/MindMoodNews/story?id=6306126&page=1
it is cases like this that write new laws
duh
"and yes another dead person is a small price to pay, for staying away from being a total police state"
ignorant and retarded on so many levels. as if the creation of new law has anything do with a police state. as if your excusing of psychopathic murder is somehow no worse than what goes on in a police state, making you and your attitude worse than what you fear
the facts i read them show her to be the originator of the messages, not the assistant or the daughter. every convicted murderer or rapist likewise wan't there or was tricked in to
the crime
but we shall soon see, as the case proceeds in a court of law, won't we?
but thanks for your helping of bias
the moral reprehensibility of what she did obviously has to be punished. the idea of laws is to maintain a well-functioning society. we have laws against rapists, murders, etc., so we can keep these people away form society. this woman is a psychopath. she should not be allowed to be free in society. she has aptly demonstrated she is a danger to others. whatever law exists or does not exist, the moral basis for her punishment is 100% sound