NationStates Jolt Archive

Kentucky Lawmaker Wants to Make Anonymous Internet Posting Illegal

By Kellie Wilson
E-mail | Biography

Kentucky Representative Tim Couch filed a bill this week to make anonymous posting online illegal.

The bill would require anyone who contributes to a website to register their real name, address and e-mail address with that site.

Their full name would be used anytime a comment is posted.

If the bill becomes law, the website operator would have to pay if someone was allowed to post anonymously on their site. The fine would be five-hundred dollars for a first offense and one-thousand dollars for each offense after that.

Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of cutting down on online bullying. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district.

Action News 36 asked people what they thought about the bill.

Some said they felt it was a violation of First Amendment rights. Others say it is a good tool toward eliminating online harassment.

Represntative Couch says enforcing this bill if it became law would be a challenge.


Link (http://www.wtvq.com/content/midatlantic/tvq/video.apx.-content-articles-TVQ-2008-03-05-0011.html)

Ok, on the first bold, I have to ask, has Cyber Bullying really become that much of a problem? I mean Hell, if you're having a real problem with Cyber Bullying, then I hate to see what happens when someone bullies you in real life. One of the great thing about the internet is that you can simply choose to ignore the cyber "bullying".

Now for the second part, I really hope those people do not vote, because if they do, then they'll always choose "Security" over Freedom. Yea, they want Gov. Co. to protect them and coddle them like a Nanny. Well it's time to face reality, and that is, real life is hard, it sucks, so suck it up and get use to it. It's not Gov. Co. place to make your life better and coddle you, that is up to you, and you alone.

This legislation does violate the First Amendment Rights of the USA Constitution and if this passes, I expect the Supreme Courts to rule it Unconstitutional.

Hmm.... I though conservatives wanted small gov. But, I guess he is Marxist after all.

I guess the point is this: the U.S doesn't own the internet and therefore it can kiss our international buttcheeks

Hmm.... I though conservatives wanted small gov. But, I guess he is Marxist after all.

No no, you misunderstand, they want small gov except when it comes to protecting us that the Bible deem "evil" and "sinful". Why, because it's their obligation to do so!

These lawmakers once more prove they have no fucking clue about how the internet works.

That guy is just asking to be lynched by an angry mob of internetizens. I'm sick and tired of this messing with the internet from the real world. No government has any place in the separate dimension that is the internet. If it must be, there should be a special court for the internet. Which would be on my platform, should I be running for any public office.

A couple of points:

If I post anonymously, how the hell will they find me?

And if I do supply a name, how the hell will they know I give them my real one?

How the fuck do you 'cyber bully'?

Because if I can figure out how to give wedgies over the internet, Chaos will finally triumph!

How the fuck do you 'cyber bully'?

Because if I can figure out how to give wedgies over the internet, Chaos would finally triumph!

I think Cyber Bullying is someone sending a rude and crude e-mail or message over MySpace. Pretty Pathetic if you ask me. I think people who get hot and bothered by Cyber Bullying are way too sensitive and need to grow a thicker skin.

Let's play a game for the hell of it. Why do you believe it would be unconstitutional?

I think Cyber Bullying is someone sending a rude and crude e-mail or message over MySpace. Pretty Pathetic if you ask me. I think people who get hot and bothered by Cyber Bullying are way too sensitive and need to grow a thicker skin.

Well let's assume for a moment that Representative Tiny Crotch gets his way... every free e-mail site(hotmail, yahoo, etc) would not only need your name and address, there would have to be some reasonable method of verifying it. What would that method be? Full time psychics?

Second, Myspace, Facebook, Blogs etc. would have to be retooled to not allow e-mails or any other form of posts without such a verification.

All to save... what? Feelings?

Edit: And what if they have your real name and address? Then what? Does Nigel Shmuckatelli from Naples, Italy give a flying fuck if Billy Bob Buttstench from Kentucky got his feelings hurt?

Edit #2: I'm enjoying the hell out of this. :)

If I post anonymously, how the hell will they find me?

And if I do supply a name, how the hell will they know I give them my real one?

They won't, and they won't.

Hence why I stated that those lawmakers are talking right out of their ass. Like Ace Ventura. Except they're not actors paid to look stupid; they're not doing it on purpose, they're naturally like that.

I think Cyber Bullying is someone sending a rude and crude e-mail or message over MySpace. Pretty Pathetic if you ask me. I think people who get hot and bothered by Cyber Bullying are way too sensitive and need to grow a thicker skin.
:rolleyes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevada-tan Yeah, hot and bothered alright.

Well let's assume for a moment that Representative Tiny Crotch

You see.. you see! This is why! You are part of the problem you big meany..Mc.Meanypants! :(

*sob*

That was so harsh even my feelings are hurt. Meany.

Hmm.... I though conservatives wanted small gov. But, I guess he is Marxist after all.

Because political conservatism does not equal real conservatism. Just like liberal politicians aren't truly "liberal". Never trust a congresscritter EVER until it has shown itself to be a true statesman. Hint: the statesmen are never the ones you see every night on TV.

You see.. you see! This is why! You are part of the problem you big meany..Mc.Meanypants! :(

*sob*

That was so harsh even my feelings are hurt. Meany.

Oops. Spelling error. ;)

Oops. Spelling error. ;)

There is no such thing as an 'error' on this system of tubes, there are 'ad-blockers' which prevent these so-called 'error messages'. Without smoke there is no fire.

Your callousness will not go unpunished.
*reports you to the FBI, CIA, IRS, PETA, and YMCA*

Let's play a game for the hell of it. Why do you believe it would be unconstitutional?

Because it's an attempt to regulate speech, by identifying who is posting on a website, forum, or blog, then the person is forced to think about his words more carefully so he won't be stalked, or killed or whatever. The Internet is one of the few free speech arena we have left. Because we do post anon, or behind an alias, we are more open, we speak more freely, and I think that should be protected.

Representative Couch says he filed the bill in hopes of increasing identity theft. He says that has especially been a problem in his Eastern Kentucky district.

Fixed

There is no such thing as an 'error' on this system of tubes, there are 'ad-blockers' which prevent these so-called 'error messages'. Without smoke there is no fire.

Your callousness will not go unpunished.
*reports you to the FBI, CIA, IRS, PETA, and YMCA*

Like they don't all have files on me already! :p

Because it's an attempt to regulate speech,

In what way does that equate to using the force of law to limit what you say?


by identifying who is posting on a website, forum, or blog,

In what way does that equate to using the force of law to limit what you say?

then the person is forced to think about his words more carefully so he won't be stalked, or killed or whatever.

In what way does that equate to using the force of law to limit what you say?

The Internet is one of the few free speech arena we have left.

In what way would a law requiring you to post with your name equate to using the force of law to limit what you say?

Because we do post anon, or behind an alias, we are more open, we speak more freely, and I think that should be protected.

What part of the first amendment gives you the right to post on the internet anonymously? What part of this bill would actually limit your speech?

Not create a situation in which you may feel greater concern and thus choose to limit yourself, that's not what the first amendment says. What part of this bill would actually stop you from saying something online? How does any of this stop you from saying anything?

Because we do post anon, or behind an alias, we are more open, we speak more freely, and I think that should be protected.

Nurse: Anon, anon! Come, let's away; the strangers are all gone.

Creeeepy..:eek:

Like they don't all have files on me already! :p

How true that is..

*virtually pies some obscure fifth-party candidate*

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

In what way does that equate to using the force of law to limit what you say?




In what way does that equate to using the force of law to limit what you say?



In what way does that equate to using the force of law to limit what you say?



In what way would a law requiring you to post with your name equate to using the force of law to limit what you say?



What part of the first amendment gives you the right to post on the internet anonymously? What part of this bill would actually limit your speech?

Not create a situation in which you may feel greater concern and thus choose to limit yourself, that's not what the first amendment says. What part of this bill would actually stop you from saying something online? How does any of this stop you from saying anything?




This, I agree. Saying it violates your first ammendment rights is simply wrong.

You can still say whatever little thing pops into your head, you just have to admit you said it. That way, whoever you are harassing over the internet can punch you in the jaw the next day.

See, I actually kind of like this law. It lets you say whatever you want, but makes you suffer the consequences if you say something dumb.

These lawmakers once more prove they have no fucking clue about how the internet works.

Of course they do. It is a series of connected tubes...;)

-snip-

The legislation itself doesn't regulate free speech, but I'm thinking more of the repercussions of such legislation. Let's say Guy A post something on a forum, and Guy B doesn't like it. Now Guy B could just post his opinion and be done with it. That's the way it works right now and it's working fine. However, with this legislation, guy B can now track Guy A down, stalk him, or beat him up, or kill him, or all of the above.

If that happens then it gets out on the news, and now we don't know if the person we're talking to on the net is a psychopath who takes this way to seriously, and the side effect will be us watching what we say out of fear. While the first amendment doesn't give us the right to post anon or behind an Alias, it does prevent Congress from abridging the freedom of speech, which this lesgislation does, indirectly.


You can still say whatever little thing pops into your head, you just have to admit you said it. That way, whoever you are harassing over the internet can punch you in the jaw the next day.

Yea that sounds like a reasonable response to "Cyber bullying"

See, I actually kind of like this law. It lets you say whatever you want, but makes you suffer the consequences if you say something dumb.

Didn't realize I had to be held accountable for what I say now....

Of course they do. It is a series of connected tubes...;)

*takes a deep breath, prepares a tirade*

...

*exhales loudly, slaps forehead, and walk away in despair, muttering about it not being worth it*

Unenforceable therefore irrelevant.

If cyber-bullying is such a problem, maybe I could sell cyber-blackbelts, so cyber-weaklings can kick a cyber-bullies cyber-ass.:rolleyes:

The legislation itself doesn't regulate free speech, but I'm thinking more of the repercussions of such legislation. Let's say Guy A post something on a forum, and Guy B doesn't like it. Now Guy B could just post his opinion and be done with it. That's the way it works right now and it's working fine. However, with this legislation, guy B can now track Guy A down, stalk him, or beat him up, or kill him, or all of the above.


That sounds pretty damn like how it is in real life, where people see your face and usually know who you are when you're saying something.

Are you advocating the systematic, enforced burqua for everyone so that we may spout bullshit freely and anonymously on the streets, all in the name of freedom of speech? Because that's the parallel that comes to mind.

Freedom of speech does not include anonymity.

The reason the legislation is stupid is because it's unenforceable. Not because it infringes on freedom of speech. Because it doesn't.

I think Cyber Bullying is someone sending a rude and crude e-mail or message over MySpace. Pretty Pathetic if you ask me. I think people who get hot and bothered by Cyber Bullying are way too sensitive and need to grow a thicker skin.
Who the hell uses myspace anymore? :confused:

Well let's assume for a moment that Representative Tiny Crotch gets his way... every free e-mail site(hotmail, yahoo, etc) would not only need your name and address, there would have to be some reasonable method of verifying it. What would that method be? Full time psychics?

Second, Myspace, Facebook, Blogs etc. would have to be retooled to not allow e-mails or any other form of posts without such a verification.

All to save... what? Feelings?

Edit: And what if they have your real name and address? Then what? Does Nigel Shmuckatelli from Naples, Italy give a flying fuck if Billy Bob Buttstench from Kentucky got his feelings hurt?

Edit #2: I'm enjoying the hell out of this. :)
That makes it unenforceable without great expense. :)

In what way does that equate to using the force of law to limit what you say?
In what way does that equate to using the force of law to limit what you say?
In what way does that equate to using the force of law to limit what you say?
In what way would a law requiring you to post with your name equate to using the force of law to limit what you say?

Not create a situation in which you may feel greater concern and thus choose to limit yourself, that's not what the first amendment says. What part of this bill would actually stop you from saying something online? How does any of this stop you from saying anything?
The main benefit of anonimosity is that you can say whatever the fuck you want without worrying that a gang of hate-filled whatevers will come and kill you. If people have to identify themselves, they will self-censor what they are saying to make sure it won't hurt their image. This also violates the right to life stuff. There's no due process and people can be killed if their identities are revealed. Just imagine the whole anti-Scientology movement without the anonymous ability.

What part of the first amendment gives you the right to post on the internet anonymously? What part of this bill would actually limit your speech?
That's why we need a special internet amendment and separate court system.

This, I agree. Saying it violates your first ammendment rights is simply wrong.
already covered above.

You can still say whatever little thing pops into your head, you just have to admit you said it. That way, whoever you are harassing over the internet can punch you in the jaw the next day.
People will want to avoid this and censor themselves.

See, I actually kind of like this law. It lets you say whatever you want, but makes you suffer the consequences if you say something dumb.
GTFO son. We don't want your rubbish on the internets. OUT! OUT!


I will report this issue to the proper authorities: Anonymous and 4chan. This guy will become an enemy of the internet and delat with however the internet wishes.

This, I agree. Saying it violates your first ammendment rights is simply wrong.

You can still say whatever little thing pops into your head, you just have to admit you said it. That way, whoever you are harassing over the internet can punch you in the jaw the next day.

See, I actually kind of like this law. It lets you say whatever you want, but makes you suffer the consequences if you say something dumb.

Anonymity is the only protection available to those who state unpopular opinions, disagree with the powerful in politics or business, or otherwise seek freedom from tyranny. This looks like a lousy excuse to push forward a potentially dangerous bill.

On the "right to privacy" in the united States: This is never explicitly given by the Constitution or Bill Of Rights. On the other hand, see amendments 1 and 4 in the Bill of Rights, and also pay particular attention to 9 and 10. The authority to create this legislation or anything remotely like it is specifically forbidden to the federal government here because it is outside the jurisdiction of Congress.

If you want a police state, don't try to force it on me. Go where one already exists. I will remain here and fight to return to true liberty and throw off the chains that have already been thrown about me. If you would exchange liberties for the illusion of security, you will find you will have neither.

I have a better solution.
The Government mounts CCTVs in full view of every computer in America.(or the world) This way we can just skip all the intermediate steps and get right down to the 24 hour surveillance with troops marching the night patrols through the streets.

The legislation itself doesn't regulate free speech

OK then, thank you, so it has nothing to dowith the first amendment.

but I'm thinking more of the repercussions of such legislation. Let's say Guy A post something on a forum, and Guy B doesn't like it. Now Guy B could just post his opinion and be done with it. That's the way it works right now and it's working fine. However, with this legislation, guy B can now track Guy A down, stalk him, or beat him up, or kill him, or all of the above.

and what does that have to do with the first amendment?

If that happens then it gets out on the news, and now we don't know if the person we're talking to on the net is a psychopath who takes this way to seriously, and the side effect will be us watching what we say out of fear.

and what does that have to do with the first amendment?

While the first amendment doesn't give us the right to post anon or behind an Alias, it does prevent Congress from abridging the freedom of speech, which this lesgislation does, indirectly.

Your argument, essentially, is that it is impermissible for a legislature to pass any law that would cause someone to fear possible non judicial ramifications of his speech is abridging speech. That....stretches the interpretation of the first amendment beyond any logical meaning and is totally inconsistant with any precident that I can think of.


Didn't realize I had to be held accountable for what I say now....

One would think that being held accountable for your actions would be the fundamental principle of an ordered society.

The main benefit of anonimosity is that you can say whatever the fuck you want without worrying that a gang of hate-filled whatevers will come and kill you.

And here I was thinking there were, you know, laws, judiciary apparels, police and security forces against this very kind of things.

In real life, people are not anonymous when they talk or express themselves. Yet you don't see people murdered daily with all impunity by gangs of hate-filled whatevers who run havoc unopposed.

Even though this law is unenforceable beyond attempt, I'm going to rant anyway.

First of all, cyber-bullying is a fucking joke. I may still be in my teens but I got to agree with my parents on this one: kids today are pussies. There's no nice way to say it, they're a bunch of pussies. 30 years ago, actual fights were considered part of normal school reality, and they didn't end with armed cops arresting the children, they ended with a detention or something. Now real fights are something altogether different, but the internet?! Wow, pathetic beyond belief. Kids are so fucking sad these days. I was treated like shit for 11 school years without a break. Did I cry, did I whine, did I shoot everyone? No. I shrugged them off as the fucktards they all were and moved on.

The main benefit of anonimosity is that you can say whatever the fuck you want without worrying that a gang of hate-filled whatevers will come and kill you. If people have to identify themselves, they will self-censor what they are saying to make sure it won't hurt their image. This also violates the right to life stuff. There's no due process and people can be killed if their identities are revealed. Just imagine the whole anti-Scientology movement without the anonymous ability.

But none of that has anything to do with the first amendment. The first amendment prevents the government from limiting what you say. This does not. The fact that it might cause you to take a moment to consider additional, non judicial considerations doesn't mean it prevents your speech as a matter of law.

Even though this law is unenforceable beyond attempt, I'm going to rant anyway.

First of all, cyber-bullying is a fucking joke. I may still be in my teens but I got to agree with my parents on this one: kids today are pussies. There's no nice way to say it, they're a bunch of pussies. 30 years ago, actual fights were considered part of normal school reality, and they didn't end with armed cops arresting the children, they ended with a detention or something. Now real fights are something altogether different, but the internet?! Wow, pathetic beyond belief. Kids are so fucking sad these days. I was treated like shit for 11 school years without a break. Did I cry, did I whine, did I shoot everyone? No. I shrugged them off as the fucktards they all were and moved on.

*applauds*

I have been saying the same thing for some time now.

Even though this law is unenforceable beyond attempt, I'm going to rant anyway.

First of all, cyber-bullying is a fucking joke. I may still be in my teens but I got to agree with my parents on this one: kids today are pussies. There's no nice way to say it, they're a bunch of pussies. 30 years ago, actual fights were considered part of normal school reality, and they didn't end with armed cops arresting the children, they ended with a detention or something. Now real fights are something altogether different, but the internet?! Wow, pathetic beyond belief. Kids are so fucking sad these days. I was treated like shit for 11 school years without a break. Did I cry, did I whine, did I shoot everyone? No. I shrugged them off as the fucktards they all were and moved on.

I might use a tad less vulgarity, but I would agree. How about the kids who want to fight just have a good ol' knock-down drag-out fistfight and get it over with?

In what way does that equate to using the force of law to limit what you say?

Regarding the limitations of freedom of speech? Easy. It makes it a cakewalk for the Church of Scientology to track and sue their critics. And then frame you for crimes.

Speaking of which, what happened to the protest that was scheduled this March?

This, I agree. Saying it violates your first ammendment rights is simply wrong.

You can still say whatever little thing pops into your head, you just have to admit you said it. That way, whoever you are harassing over the internet can punch you in the jaw the next day.

See, I actually kind of like this law. It lets you say whatever you want, but makes you suffer the consequences if you say something dumb.

It also makes you vulnerable to just about anyone who wants to suppress free speech and has a pack of lawyers and burglars to do so. Like the CoS.

This sort of ruling isn't that far off from the whole wiretapping issue, and "if you've got nothing to hide" argument.

Regarding the limitations of freedom of speech? Easy. It makes it a cakewalk for the Church of Scientology to track and sue their critics. And then frame you for crimes.

is the church of scientology a government agency?

no?

Then the first amendment does not apply. Thank you for playing.

is the church of scientology a government agency?

no?

Then the first amendment does not apply. Thank you for playing.

I'm not saying the bill itself will curtail freedom of speech. But it will open the doors to massive abuses that will curtail it, especially when the laws are already so skewed to being lawsuit friendly.

I'm not saying the bill itself will curtail freedom of speech. But it will open the doors to massive abuses that will curtail it, especially when the laws are already so skewed to being lawsuit friendly.

One might comment that you Americans need to reform those abusive-lawsuit laws to begin with anyway.

I might use a tad less vulgarity, but I would agree. How about the kids who want to fight just have a good ol' knock-down drag-out fistfight and get it over with?

Well that is why cyber bullying is more effective because you can do what you want on the net without the other guy or girl coming up and beating you as you suggest.

Now sometimes cyber bullying is beat up by the media but does occur indeed to some extent it goes on within this very forum, not bad bullying but bullying nevertheless.

But would you say to the 15 year old schoolboy (and if I find the article it was about 8 months ago I will post it) but would you say to him after a bunch of lads placed on to the net and sent it around to hundreds of people photo shopped pictures of his face on to gay pictures sucking cock and and in other positions with words around stating that he loved cock and is gay. Should he just sit back and accept it and live the next few years of everyone calling him fag boy and asking him to suck their cock. After all he can't just go and smash the guy up as while he thinks he knows who it is he can't prove it.

That is real cyber bullying as people can say what they want and run away without saying who they are or wait for any comeback, and a bit more serious to someone saying "you are a dickhead" in saying that the article in the OP is just a stupid idea, it won't work and cannot be enforced. Cyber bullying also goes to the extent of people filming what they have done to humiliate someone and then posting it on youtube or other similar websites


Have a read about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-bullying#Comparison_to_traditional_bullying (this is a small article and only skims the surface)

One might comment that you Americans need to reform those abusive-lawsuit laws to begin with anyway.

Less effort to shoot down this new bill to begin with. And secondly, reforming those laws would probably be strongly opposed by a variety of groups that benefit from it, and not just the scummier lawyers.

Less effort to shoot down this new bill to begin with. And secondly, reforming those laws would probably be strongly opposed by a variety of groups that benefit from it, and not just the scummier lawyers.

So you basically admit that the problem lies elsewhere than freedom of speech restrictions in this bill, but would rather save yourselves the collective hassle of fixing the real problem, so you decide to sweep the issue under the rug?

:-/

At any rate, sorry for throwing the thread off tracks. But the fact remains that the proposed Bill, in and of itself, does nothing to limit freedom of speech.

Freedom of privacy advocates might have a point, but it's not related to freedom of speech.

At any rate, those discussions are theoretical at best, because even if the legislature passes, it will have no effect whatsoever on the problem it's supposed to fix, because it's unenforceable (and generally impossible to legislate the internet, but stupid lawmakers with no insight on what exactly is the net and how it works don't know that).

Well that is why cyber bullying is more effective because you can do what you want on the net without the other guy or girl coming up and beating you as you suggest.

Now sometimes cyber bullying is beat up by the media but does occur indeed to some extent it goes on within this very forum, not bad bullying but bullying nevertheless.

But would you say to the 15 year old schoolboy (and if I find the article it was about 8 months ago I will post it) but would you say to him after a bunch of lads placed on to the net and sent it around to hundreds of people photo shopped pictures of his face on to gay pictures sucking cock and and in other positions with words around stating that he loved cock and is gay. Should he just sit back and accept it and live the next few years of everyone calling him fag boy and asking him to suck their cock. After all he can't just go and smash the guy up as while he thinks he knows who it is he can't prove it.

That is real cyber bullying as people can say what they want and run away without saying who they are or wait for any comeback, and a bit more serious to someone saying "you are a dickhead" in saying that the article in the OP is just a stupid idea, it won't work and cannot be enforced. Cyber bullying also goes to the extent of people filming what they have done to humiliate someone and then posting it on youtube or other similar websites


Have a read about it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-bullying#Comparison_to_traditional_bullying (this is a small article and only skims the surface)

Yeah but in America, they only define Bullying as explicit physical injuries. Sorta like how Bush and Gonzalez only defined Torture as explicit physical injuries. No matter how much a malicious gossip and insult campaign makes a kid miserable (and the internet is merely another extension of the real-life bullying and rarely the bulk of it) most people have this "Don't Be A Pussy And Take It Like A Man" attitude about it.

And then they wonder why there's more school shootings.

Anonymity is the only protection available to those who state unpopular opinions, disagree with the powerful in politics or business, or otherwise seek freedom from tyranny. This looks like a lousy excuse to push forward a potentially dangerous bill.

On the "right to privacy" in the united States: This is never explicitly given by the Constitution or Bill Of Rights. On the other hand, see amendments 1 and 4 in the Bill of Rights, and also pay particular attention to 9 and 10. The authority to create this legislation or anything remotely like it is specifically forbidden to the federal government here because it is outside the jurisdiction of Congress.

If you want a police state, don't try to force it on me. Go where one already exists. I will remain here and fight to return to true liberty and throw off the chains that have already been thrown about me. If you would exchange liberties for the illusion of security, you will find you will have neither.



Oh please. Im a paranoid anti-government ebil leftists and even I think the idea that this is intended so the government can silence dissent is absurd.

All this does is make people, namely thirteen year old girls, have to post their names when they leave harassing messeges to other thirteen year old girls, like "omg u r fat lolz!!111!!111!!", allowing the girl being harassed to punch said girls in the jaw.

All this will do is make morons who post stupid shit accountable for the stupid shit they post. Like I said, I support freedom of speech 100%, but I also think you should have to deal with the consequences of saying stupid things. If you go up to a black guy and say "I bet you are a criminal ******!", you have a right to say that, but if he beats you to a bloody pulp, well, tough shit.

Or, if the WBC is protesting at a military funeral, and that dead soldier's CO or squad mate goes over and beats the living crap ut of Fred Phelps, again, they have a right to speak their minds, and therefor should have to deal with the consequences of their actions.


That being said, this law is unenforcable and therefore a joke. I dont even really like this law. I just like one of the potential ideas behind this law. And saying it violates free speech is absurd. Nowhere do I see it saying you cant say certian things.

Yeah but in America, they only define Bullying as explicit physical injuries. Sorta like how Bush and Gonzalez only defined Torture as explicit physical injuries. No matter how much a malicious gossip and insult campaign makes a kid miserable (and the internet is merely another extension of the real-life bullying and rarely the bulk of it) most people have this "Don't Be A Pussy And Take It Like A Man" attitude about it.

And then they wonder why there's more school shootings.


Indeed, anyone with any remote knowledge of psychology laughs at the "kids today are just pussies" mentality espoused by certian posters in this topic.

So you basically admit that the problem lies elsewhere than freedom of speech restrictions in this bill, but would rather save yourselves the collective hassle of fixing the real problem, so you decide to sweep the issue under the rug?

:-/


If I could, I would. Not being an American, I'm unlikely to alter the law there anytime soon.

Or, if the WBC is protesting at a military funeral, and that dead soldier's CO or squad mate goes over and beats the living crap ut of Fred Phelps, again, they have a right to speak their minds, and therefor should have to deal with the consequences of their actions.


Unfortunately no. Smack talk does not make one legally unprotected from assault. If spouting crap was grounds for that, or even murder, we'd have a lot less NSG'er's walking around I suspect, and a lot more graves.

Likewise, freedom of speech is just that. Limited with responsibilities (like not inciting a riot), but unless those responsibilities are broken, freedom from being persecuted for saying it.

Unfortunately no. Smack talk does not make one legally unprotected from assault. If spouting crap was grounds for that, or even murder, we'd have a lot less NSG'er's walking around I suspect, and a lot more graves.

Likewise, freedom of speech is just that. Limited with responsibilities (like not inciting a riot), but unless those responsibilities are broken, freedom from being persecuted for saying it.


Well, yeah I know that you can still be sued for assualt, but it helps to illustrate my point. You can say waht you want, but understand there will be consequences.

Well, yeah I know that you can still be sued for assualt, but it helps to illustrate my point. You can say waht you want, but understand there will be consequences.

You do realize that some of these "consequences" aren't really consequences but rather stifling of dissent? Like spreading false information regarding someone who said something you don't like so he'll lose his job, his home and end up in jail?

I mean, if we use that argument that consequences aren't a sign of stifling freedom of speech, then clearly the Soviet Union had freedom of speech (Article 50 of their constitution). Going to a gulag or being shot by the NKVD/KGB was merely a consequence of using that freedom.

Are you advocating the systematic, enforced burqua for everyone so that we may spout bullshit freely and anonymously on the streets, all in the name of freedom of speech? Because that's the parallel that comes to mind.

But we're allowed to yell at people about the promiscuity of their mothers anonymously on the streets if we want to, and we're allowed to run away before they can discover who we are. Why should the Internet be any different?