No I don't condone violence. Idealistically, I support your legal right to stand in the middle of Watts shouting "Nigger!" at the top of your lungs. But no one should be surprised when the inevitable result occurs, nor would I have much sympathy for you when it does, for you would have to be one incredibly stupid honky to actually exercise this right.
Yeah, that reminds me of the story of the old lady how called the police to report that her neighbor was sunbathing nude. The police came over and said "I don't see anything". "Well, look out the upstairs window!" said the lady. "Still don't see anything," said the police. To which the lady replied, "But if you lean way out of the window, and use these binoculars, than you can plainly see..."
Charles Manson considered the Beatles' song "Helter-Skelter" a direct inspiration for his groups murders, and definitely acted on that inspiration. Yet no sane person would hold the Beatles responsible for the Manson Family murders. Manson himself committed no murders, but he either directly or indirectly inspired others to do so, and Manson was held responsible. It is a gray area that does not lend itself to hard and fast rules. Just like obscenity, I cannot strictly define it, but I know it when I see it. Likewise for the "Somebody should just shoot that stupid bitch..." statement; interpretation depends on context. If I'm at a meeting of Mafia hitmen and say it, I would probably be held accountable. If I'm sitting at the bar drunk off my ass and bitching about the government when I say it, I would probably not be held accountable, even if someone does decide to off the ignorant slut the next day.
Fred Phelps? Gee, for somebody that professes to be straight, he sure spends a lot of time thinking about homosexuals and homosexual acts, doesn't he? My personal philosophy is that the sexual preferences of anybody else is irrelevant to me, unless I am planning on dating them. Phelps appears to be a textbook example of a "latent homosexual". In addition, I have absolutely no respect for someone who has attacked my hero, Fred Rogers! Unfortunately, I agree with you. As offensive as his speech is, there is no evidence that he has advocated violence against the people he hates, thus it still qualifies as "free speech". He has been implicated in repeated unlawful and violent acts, but I don't see any pattern of targeting any specific group as victims. Best way to deal with him? Don' reduce yourself to his level. Don't let them provoke you into physical confrontations. My best idea for dealing with his protests is to stage a counter protest wherein all the counter-protesters simply ignore his group and engage in blatant public displays of affection with members of the same sex. I'm straight, but even I would kiss a guy just to piss the assholes off!
My sister has lots of testicles. She's a veterinarian. Isn't it funny how most female veterinarians don't see any connection between their fascination with castration and their inability to keep a boyfriend for very long?
Right. But instead of criminalizing talking smack, wouldn't it be better to criminalizing hiding behind a mask to talk smack? If I know my critic on the web is a well-known wacko, then I can choose to disregard anything they say -- and so can anybody else. As it currently stands, I just have to assume that everyone who posts as "Anonymous Coward" is actually a wacko, as I have no way of distinguishing those that are from those are are not. Unless you care to post your name, address, and what times you are home so I can come there and kick your ass, your opinion is pretty worthless to me.
The problem with this law is that it can just as easily be applied to victims making legitimate complaints about their oppressors as it can to people using the 'net to harass others.
Unless it is an obvious hypothetical example, satire, or act of fiction, yes. I agree that there is a huge gray area there. It is difficult to draw a definitive line between "threatening" and "non-threatening" speech, and there is certainly room for intelligent and well-meaning people to disagree on the definition of what constitutes "threatening". You can't define it as "whatever the victim considers threatening", since the victim may very well be an irrational paranoid. So you have to use the criteria "would a reasonable person with similar experience consider this speech threatening," which opens you up to the same kind of community standard silliness that we see for porn. Unfortunately, it is ultimately impossible to prove intent in court (unless the defendants themselves admit to it.)
So, the way to wipe out the illegal stealing and smuggling of ancient relics is to flood the market with cheap fakes. What other areas of unlawful exploitation can this principle be applied to? Drugs? Child porn? Bootleg music and movies? I believe flooding the prostitution market with fake girls has already been tried, but it hasn't been too successful at curbing demand.
Right... so under this bill, criticizing the actions of NAMBLA members with young boys would also be regarded as harrassment? Pedophiles rejoice, you have now become a protected class! Won't somebody please think of the children?!?
As much as I hated the KKK, I reluctantly agreed that they should get their free speech rights.
Yes and no. They have the right to promote their unenlightened views, e.g. the right to state their opinion that certain races are "inferior" to others, despite the science that tells us we are ALL of African descent and the "racial" differences are merely differences in external appearance. What they do not have the right to is threatening speech or speech which incites violence against others -- and they have lost court battles on exactly that principle. Personally, given the well-known history of the SS or the KKK, I feel that marching down any street in a SS or KKK uniform constitutes an implicit threat, and therefore should not be allowed. Likewise, Orangemen parades though Catholic neighborhoods could also easily be construed at threatening, and therefore should be illegal. Merely saying "The Irish are pigs!" should not be illegal, but if there is any justice, it should get your ass kicked by a group of drunken Irishmen.
false friends and false romantic interests That is the gist of it right there -- the harasser committed fraud to achieve her nefarious purposes. That rightly should be illegal. Protecting people from fraud and pretense is a legitimate and necessary function of government. Protecting them from people insulting them should not be. There are two morals to the story: 1) Don't believe anything you read online, unless it is corroborated by real life experience. Somebody that says they love you online but won't meet in person is obviously yanking your chain, and probably not who they say they are. 2) The internet lacks a "trust" mechanism, that is a mechanism for definitively establishing the fact that the person posting or sending messages really IS a Nigerian prince. No amount of legislation will change this; this is a technical problem, not a legal one. Note that a mechanism that would definitively establish the identity of an email sender would also wipe out spam as soon as everybody adopted use of the mechanism. The phone system has Caller ID; the internet has "I am whoever I say I am!" I would favor the creation of a subset of the internet where anonymous speech is impossible.
Since, once again, the gender of a reactionary twat been left out of the summary, I feel it necessary to do the job the poster and/. editors have failed to do. Linda Sanchez is a woman, therefore all women should be judged by her unenlightened actions. All women should be tarred with this same brush, even the women that vehemently disagree with her!
There, does that make as much sense as pointing out that she is a Democrat?
Freedom is also the right not to listen to what you don't want to hear. "La, la, la... I can't hear you!" The law must strike a balance between these two rights, but clearly no one is forcing anyone to read a blog, so it should be considered pure free speech. (Unless it advocates and/or encourages the use of violence or other criminal activities by third parties. I.e. saying "Linda Sanchez should eat shit and die!" is acceptable speech, whereas saying "Somebody should just shoot that stupid bitch Linda Sanchez" should be considered a criminal act. Please note that any quotes I have made regarding Linda Sanchez should be considered merely as hypothetical examples; I don't really think that she is a bad person or advocate harassing her in any way. If you do choose to contact her, please focus your criticism entirely on the bill and do not stoop to personal attacks, even if you feel the authors of the bill may be somewhat unenlightened.
Seems like you would have to read it more than once to qualify as "repeated" offensive speech. If you can't figure that out the first time you read it, then you really are a stupid twat. While I agree misrepresentation or fraud should be illegal (i.e. pretending to be someone you are not), saying that you think someone is an ass is and should be protected speech. I make the same argument that you can't be harassed through email -- the first time you read an email from me, you knew what my address was, and had every opportunity to block that address or refuse to read emails from that address in the future. Unless I change my source address each time, how can you complain about subsequent rude emails? If no one is forcing you, coercing you, or using fraud to get you to read the objectionable speech, and yet you continue to do so, then it sounds like you have a problem, not the author of the speech!
Let unequivocally state that I would not hit that! Well, at least not unless I was really, really, drunk, and I don't drink, so it is really unlikely. Heck, I'd even rather do my wife than her! There Linda... is that offensive enough for you yet?
Let me be the first to say "Fuck you, Linda Sanchez! Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!" There - does that meet your definition of severe, repeated, and hostile speech, you dumb bitch!
When are they going to start making Predator Drone simulators available, then start taking the highest scoring kids and having them run real missions without the kid's knowledge?
He would have to be using extremely tight security each and every time in order to communicate safely The fact that he almost certainly works in IT for the state of Virginia argues that he is incapable of implementing tight security. Yes, it is just a matter of time before they announce they have apprehended him.
I'm the original poster, and I find it disturbing that it isn't modded 100% funny too! Actually, it is modded "+3; 30% Informative; 40% Insightful; 30% funny." I'm no mathematical genius, but shouldn't that be 33% of each?
I disagree; I think that everybody's prescriptions should be a matter of public record. It is not quite as embarrassing when you can point to tens of millions of others on the same medication, is it? For the record, I take Metformin and Amaryl every day. Oh, and right now I'm on Penicillin after having a tooth extracted. Which begs the question: who the fuck cares?!? Sorta hard to blackmail someone information they've already publicly released, isn't it? My parents actually live in Virgina; my mom takes Metformin and arthritis meds and my dad takes blood pressure meds... again, who the fuck cares?!? They are old and they take prescriptions -- but you could probably guess that just by looking at them.
Is there ever a point where the whiskey doesn't get better after more time? Is there ever a point where a little extra penis length doesn't matter in a bragging contest? Yes, at the point where it is already older or longer than every other example you are comparing it to. "So Bob, you say you have a bottle of fine 150 year old whiskey? Well, I've got a bottle of 151 year old whiskey! Suck on that loser!"
Although I never win the whiskey age bragging contests, the penis length contests are a different matter...
Slashdot Mirror
No I don't condone violence. Idealistically, I support your legal right to stand in the middle of Watts shouting "Nigger!" at the top of your lungs. But no one should be surprised when the inevitable result occurs, nor would I have much sympathy for you when it does, for you would have to be one incredibly stupid honky to actually exercise this right.
Yeah, that reminds me of the story of the old lady how called the police to report that her neighbor was sunbathing nude. The police came over and said "I don't see anything". "Well, look out the upstairs window!" said the lady. "Still don't see anything," said the police. To which the lady replied, "But if you lean way out of the window, and use these binoculars, than you can plainly see..."
Charles Manson considered the Beatles' song "Helter-Skelter" a direct inspiration for his groups murders, and definitely acted on that inspiration. Yet no sane person would hold the Beatles responsible for the Manson Family murders. Manson himself committed no murders, but he either directly or indirectly inspired others to do so, and Manson was held responsible. It is a gray area that does not lend itself to hard and fast rules. Just like obscenity, I cannot strictly define it, but I know it when I see it. Likewise for the "Somebody should just shoot that stupid bitch..." statement; interpretation depends on context. If I'm at a meeting of Mafia hitmen and say it, I would probably be held accountable. If I'm sitting at the bar drunk off my ass and bitching about the government when I say it, I would probably not be held accountable, even if someone does decide to off the ignorant slut the next day.
Fred Phelps? Gee, for somebody that professes to be straight, he sure spends a lot of time thinking about homosexuals and homosexual acts, doesn't he? My personal philosophy is that the sexual preferences of anybody else is irrelevant to me, unless I am planning on dating them. Phelps appears to be a textbook example of a "latent homosexual". In addition, I have absolutely no respect for someone who has attacked my hero, Fred Rogers! Unfortunately, I agree with you. As offensive as his speech is, there is no evidence that he has advocated violence against the people he hates, thus it still qualifies as "free speech". He has been implicated in repeated unlawful and violent acts, but I don't see any pattern of targeting any specific group as victims. Best way to deal with him? Don' reduce yourself to his level. Don't let them provoke you into physical confrontations. My best idea for dealing with his protests is to stage a counter protest wherein all the counter-protesters simply ignore his group and engage in blatant public displays of affection with members of the same sex. I'm straight, but even I would kiss a guy just to piss the assholes off!
My sister has lots of testicles. She's a veterinarian. Isn't it funny how most female veterinarians don't see any connection between their fascination with castration and their inability to keep a boyfriend for very long?
Right. But instead of criminalizing talking smack, wouldn't it be better to criminalizing hiding behind a mask to talk smack? If I know my critic on the web is a well-known wacko, then I can choose to disregard anything they say -- and so can anybody else. As it currently stands, I just have to assume that everyone who posts as "Anonymous Coward" is actually a wacko, as I have no way of distinguishing those that are from those are are not. Unless you care to post your name, address, and what times you are home so I can come there and kick your ass, your opinion is pretty worthless to me.
The problem with this law is that it can just as easily be applied to victims making legitimate complaints about their oppressors as it can to people using the 'net to harass others.
Hmm... that does go a long way towards explaining Rush Limbaugh's high ratings, doesn't it?
Unless it is an obvious hypothetical example, satire, or act of fiction, yes. I agree that there is a huge gray area there. It is difficult to draw a definitive line between "threatening" and "non-threatening" speech, and there is certainly room for intelligent and well-meaning people to disagree on the definition of what constitutes "threatening". You can't define it as "whatever the victim considers threatening", since the victim may very well be an irrational paranoid. So you have to use the criteria "would a reasonable person with similar experience consider this speech threatening," which opens you up to the same kind of community standard silliness that we see for porn. Unfortunately, it is ultimately impossible to prove intent in court (unless the defendants themselves admit to it.)
So, the way to wipe out the illegal stealing and smuggling of ancient relics is to flood the market with cheap fakes. What other areas of unlawful exploitation can this principle be applied to? Drugs? Child porn? Bootleg music and movies? I believe flooding the prostitution market with fake girls has already been tried, but it hasn't been too successful at curbing demand.
Right... so under this bill, criticizing the actions of NAMBLA members with young boys would also be regarded as harrassment? Pedophiles rejoice, you have now become a protected class! Won't somebody please think of the children?!?
And furthermore, it makes wussies and nerds a protected class! W00t!
As much as I hated the KKK, I reluctantly agreed that they should get their free speech rights.
Yes and no. They have the right to promote their unenlightened views, e.g. the right to state their opinion that certain races are "inferior" to others, despite the science that tells us we are ALL of African descent and the "racial" differences are merely differences in external appearance. What they do not have the right to is threatening speech or speech which incites violence against others -- and they have lost court battles on exactly that principle. Personally, given the well-known history of the SS or the KKK, I feel that marching down any street in a SS or KKK uniform constitutes an implicit threat, and therefore should not be allowed. Likewise, Orangemen parades though Catholic neighborhoods could also easily be construed at threatening, and therefore should be illegal. Merely saying "The Irish are pigs!" should not be illegal, but if there is any justice, it should get your ass kicked by a group of drunken Irishmen.
false friends and false romantic interests That is the gist of it right there -- the harasser committed fraud to achieve her nefarious purposes. That rightly should be illegal. Protecting people from fraud and pretense is a legitimate and necessary function of government. Protecting them from people insulting them should not be. There are two morals to the story: 1) Don't believe anything you read online, unless it is corroborated by real life experience. Somebody that says they love you online but won't meet in person is obviously yanking your chain, and probably not who they say they are. 2) The internet lacks a "trust" mechanism, that is a mechanism for definitively establishing the fact that the person posting or sending messages really IS a Nigerian prince. No amount of legislation will change this; this is a technical problem, not a legal one. Note that a mechanism that would definitively establish the identity of an email sender would also wipe out spam as soon as everybody adopted use of the mechanism. The phone system has Caller ID; the internet has "I am whoever I say I am!" I would favor the creation of a subset of the internet where anonymous speech is impossible.
Since, once again, the gender of a reactionary twat been left out of the summary, I feel it necessary to do the job the poster and /. editors have failed to do. Linda Sanchez is a woman, therefore all women should be judged by her unenlightened actions. All women should be tarred with this same brush, even the women that vehemently disagree with her!
There, does that make as much sense as pointing out that she is a Democrat?
Freedom is also the right not to listen to what you don't want to hear. "La, la, la... I can't hear you!" The law must strike a balance between these two rights, but clearly no one is forcing anyone to read a blog, so it should be considered pure free speech. (Unless it advocates and/or encourages the use of violence or other criminal activities by third parties. I.e. saying "Linda Sanchez should eat shit and die!" is acceptable speech, whereas saying "Somebody should just shoot that stupid bitch Linda Sanchez" should be considered a criminal act. Please note that any quotes I have made regarding Linda Sanchez should be considered merely as hypothetical examples; I don't really think that she is a bad person or advocate harassing her in any way. If you do choose to contact her, please focus your criticism entirely on the bill and do not stoop to personal attacks, even if you feel the authors of the bill may be somewhat unenlightened.
Seems like you would have to read it more than once to qualify as "repeated" offensive speech. If you can't figure that out the first time you read it, then you really are a stupid twat. While I agree misrepresentation or fraud should be illegal (i.e. pretending to be someone you are not), saying that you think someone is an ass is and should be protected speech. I make the same argument that you can't be harassed through email -- the first time you read an email from me, you knew what my address was, and had every opportunity to block that address or refuse to read emails from that address in the future. Unless I change my source address each time, how can you complain about subsequent rude emails? If no one is forcing you, coercing you, or using fraud to get you to read the objectionable speech, and yet you continue to do so, then it sounds like you have a problem, not the author of the speech!
Grow up and get a life, Linda!
Let unequivocally state that I would not hit that! Well, at least not unless I was really, really, drunk, and I don't drink, so it is really unlikely. Heck, I'd even rather do my wife than her! There Linda... is that offensive enough for you yet?
If you don't like the things I say in my blog, wouldn't the most rational reaction be to simply don't fucking read it???
Let me be the first to say "Fuck you, Linda Sanchez! Fuck you and the horse you rode in on!" There - does that meet your definition of severe, repeated, and hostile speech, you dumb bitch!
When are they going to start making Predator Drone simulators available, then start taking the highest scoring kids and having them run real missions without the kid's knowledge?
He would have to be using extremely tight security each and every time in order to communicate safely The fact that he almost certainly works in IT for the state of Virginia argues that he is incapable of implementing tight security. Yes, it is just a matter of time before they announce they have apprehended him.
I'm the original poster, and I find it disturbing that it isn't modded 100% funny too! Actually, it is modded "+3; 30% Informative; 40% Insightful; 30% funny." I'm no mathematical genius, but shouldn't that be 33% of each?
I disagree; I think that everybody's prescriptions should be a matter of public record. It is not quite as embarrassing when you can point to tens of millions of others on the same medication, is it? For the record, I take Metformin and Amaryl every day. Oh, and right now I'm on Penicillin after having a tooth extracted. Which begs the question: who the fuck cares?!? Sorta hard to blackmail someone information they've already publicly released, isn't it? My parents actually live in Virgina; my mom takes Metformin and arthritis meds and my dad takes blood pressure meds... again, who the fuck cares?!? They are old and they take prescriptions -- but you could probably guess that just by looking at them.
Before embarking on a study of science, one must first know what the limits of science and understanding are. In this regard, I would recommend Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Hofstadter's Godel, Escher, Bach, and Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Is there ever a point where the whiskey doesn't get better after more time? Is there ever a point where a little extra penis length doesn't matter in a bragging contest? Yes, at the point where it is already older or longer than every other example you are comparing it to. "So Bob, you say you have a bottle of fine 150 year old whiskey? Well, I've got a bottle of 151 year old whiskey! Suck on that loser!"
Although I never win the whiskey age bragging contests, the penis length contests are a different matter...