is it ok to be honest on the internet?

[mph4ever]

heres two links to stories where some peoples personal opinions have gotten them in trouble. these complaints were brought by the victims but will we see a situation where the internet police begin to take cases without having a victim complain to them? are these the first steps towards a global police force, acting in unison since the internet takes down international barriers?

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p95/dade_holywell/bebo.jpg

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p95/dade_holywell/bebo2.jpg

[1338 h4x0r]

One should be free to call people the miserable cunts and faggots they are on the Internets. Time to fight back.

[Volumnius Flush]

I thought most countries protected the freedom of speech. :upset:

[mph4ever]

yes, i believe most try to, but then others don't. will we see a levelling out of rules, perhaps even adopting the lowest common denominator for freedom of speech or will these "crimes" open the door to greater global co-operative policing of the internet?

[Give me Beer]

I like how in the second story a 'customer' contacted the store to point out that one of its employees had called the boss a 'cunt' on the internet. Who the **** would actually contact the store to point out something so trivial?

[GreyHam]

well the story about the lassy getting fired was all well and good

the 26 year old and the 16 year old could be a different story, theres nowhere near enough info in that article to judge

freedom of speech exists sure, but potentially he could of been harrasing her, it certainly quoted 'innapropriate' comments

the biggest question of course is wtf are 20somethings doing on a MBLA social networking site...

[siva_chair]

The day that I have to start taking the internet seriously is the day I stop using it.

[marcus_in_absentia]

No one's honest on the internet, honestly.

[mph4ever]

The day that I have to start taking the internet seriously is the day I stop using it.

i'll remember that the next time you have me backed into a corner:thumb:

[siva_chair]

i'll remember that the next time you have me backed into a corner:thumb:

Ummm ok...:confused:

[mph4ever]

Ummm ok...:confused:

like when you said the beatles were american rock, i just should have said "don't take the internet seriously"

[Berner]

This just means that if you want to be rude and offensive (which is a right that is granted to everyone via free speech) you have to do it anonymously in some cases.

After I typed that, I realized how stupid that actually is. SPEECH SHOULDN'T BE REGULATED.

[mph4ever]

but if you use it to offend or discredit someone then surely the same laws apply to online as in person to person interaction. and theres evidence right here on the screen and a load of witness too.

[Berner]

but if you use it to offend or discredit someone then surely the same laws apply to online as in person to person interaction. and theres evidence right here on the screen and a load of witness too.

1. Popular speech doesn't need protection. Therefore the concept of free speech being protected is meant for speech people find offensive. So that should nullify that point.

2. What is wrong with discrediting someone?

[mph4ever]

1. Popular speech doesn't need protection. Therefore the concept of free speech being protected is meant for speech people find offensive. So that should nullify that point.

2. What is wrong with discrediting someone?

i don't think there is anything wrong with it, we should all be entitled to our opinions. however, the courts are constantly full of cases being heard that relate to slanderous information being promoted by individuals against other individuals

[Berner]

i don't think there is anything wrong with it, we should all be entitled to our opinions. however, the courts are constantly full of cases being heard that relate to slanderous information being promoted by individuals against other individualsWell you can probably tell that I think that's pure bullshit.

[mph4ever]

i think its rubbish too but it happens and now they are extending these actions to use evidence from the internet, how long until we have to watch what we type or post, not out of respect, but out of fear?

[Berner]

i think its rubbish too but it happens and now they are extending these actions to use evidence from the internet, how long until we have to watch what we type or post, not out of respect, but out of fear?

As a staunch libertarian, I doubt I'll ever change my way of acting, but no one should even have to consider it for something like this. ****ing Government trying to tell us how to live. JUST DISPENSE MEDICAL CARE, POLICE AND EDUCATION FOR YOUR POPULACE AND STFU!

[mph4ever]

JUST DISPENSE MEDICAL CARE, POLICE AND EDUCATION FOR YOUR POPULACE AND STFU!

i'd privatise the pigs and independently monitor them such that they might not act like pigs

[Jude]

is it ok to be honest on the internet?
**** no

[Berner]

i'd privatise the pigs and independently monitor them such that they might not act like pigs

In my mind, the only role of government should be to take care of it citizens. I count medical care in there too.

[mph4ever]

In my mind, the only role of government should be to take care of it citizens. I count medical care in there too.

can't remember the last time that the pigs took care of the citizens.

[Berner]

can't remember the last time that the pigs took care of the citizens.

Exactly. VIOLENT OVERTHROW ANYONE?

[Iscariot]

1. Popular speech doesn't need protection. Therefore the concept of free speech being protected is meant for speech people find offensive. So that should nullify that point.

2. What is wrong with discrediting someone?

defamation

n. the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation. If the defamatory statement is printed or broadcast over the media it is libel and, if only oral, it is slander. Public figures, including officeholders and candidates, have to show that the defamation was made with malicious intent and was not just fair comment. Damages for slander may be limited to actual (special) damages unless there is malice. Some statements such as an accusation of having committed a crime, having a feared disease or being unable to perform one's occupation are called libel per se or slander per se and can more easily lead to large money awards in court and even punitive damage recovery by the person harmed. Most states provide for a demand for a printed retraction of defamation and only allow a lawsuit if there is no such admission of error.

libel

1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.

that's what

[Berner]

that's what
Well yeah obviously, but to discredit someone and to defame them are two different things.

[mph4ever]

yeah, and you know lawyers, once they get wind of the fact that there might be money in internet libel cases then they will looking to set precedent all over the place. it will no longer be "have an accident at work?, you could be entitled to compensation, call toll free for a no win no fee consultation" - it will be "someone call you a cu'nt on the internet today, give us the name of your isp and we'll get you money, no win no fee"

[Berner]

yeah, And You Know Lawyers, Once They Get Wind Of The Fact That There Might Be Money In Internet Libel Cases Then They Will Looking To Set Precedent All Over The Place. It Will No Longer Be "have An Accident At Work?, You Could Be Entitled To Compensation, Call Toll Free For A No Win No Fee Consultation" - It Will Be "someone Call You A Cu'nt On The Internet Today, Give Us The Name Of Your Isp And We'll Get You Money, No Win No Fee"

Cellino And Barnes!

[1338 h4x0r]

I think calling someone 'cunt' is a figurative statement of opinion and therefore not libelous. I have not seen anyone who literally resembled a cunnus.

[mph4ever]

I think calling someone 'squirrel' is a figurative statement of opinion and therefore not libelous. I have not seen anyone who literally resembled a cunnus.

well, there is one who springs to mind

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc142/commercecomet/bush/59380016.gif

and of course locally here twat means cunnus

[1338 h4x0r]

I figured.

Problem is Dubya doesn't really look like a cunnus. Maybe if he grew a beard...

[WhoDidTheElf]

Unless there's documented evidence, I take peoples opinions on the internet with a big fat block of salt.

[mph4ever]

Cellino And Barnes!


Cellino & Barnes is a New York Personal Injury Law Firm. We focus strictly on personal injury cases. We represent individuals who have been injured in New York auto accidents, such as truck accidents, bicycle accidents and car accidents. We help New York construction accident victims and victims of medical malpractice. We represent individuals and the families of those who have suffered traumatic brain injuries ("tbi") and birth injuries. We also represent individuals throughout the country with regard to injuries suffered from defective products and dangerous drugs, such as Vioxx, Baycol and Avandia. We are here to help you.

Contact Ross Cellino and Steve Barnes today. Let our New York personal injury attorneys go to work for you.

*past results do not guarantee future outcome


hahaha, did you ever look at their website? the two lads walkout and have chat with you from the page, like they are on a stage. check it out

http://www.cellinoandbarnes.com/

[Dr Hooch]

I thought most countries protected the freedom of speech. :upset:

nope

mine certaintly doesn't

"inciting racial hatred" is a crime for example

[Shell]

You should use the same discretion on the internet that you should use in real life.

[Kaleid]

Offense. Crops up again and again.

No-one on this planet has the right NOT to be offended

[JohnXDoe]

i don't think there is much fire under all this

the press, politicians, and perhaps the courts like to make something of this because it looks like they are doing something about a "problem."

i suppose if the harrasement / smear is really damaging and affects the persons rl in a real way (loss of job, home, bodily harm) a case might be had.

but for regular folks having lulz i don't think it matters. if someone wants to bring a case i guess that is fine...but i doubt they will always win or even have one.

i'm not minding p's, q's, or anything else. watch this:

fu semi

yeah now how u gonna act!

[Volumnius Flush]

I think calling someone 'cunt' is a figurative statement of opinion and therefore not libelous. I have not seen anyone who literally resembled a cunnus.

I am practically a gynecologist and have never heard the word 'cunnus'!

[Jude]

i suppose if the harrasement / smear is really damaging and affects the persons rl in a real way (loss of job, home, bodily harm) a case might be had.



The only case I can think of where that might happen is something like jaylink where it's completely their fault anyway

[JohnXDoe]

^ exactly. it takes two to tango. even on the internet.

their was a case about a woman pretending to be a teenage boy and she led a vulnerable and disturbed girl down her street to siucide. well, she didn't lead her....but her actions on the internet were such that she led her to believe an e romance was taking place...then broke her heart. the girl killed herself

now this woman is in her 40's, and i forget her motive but i think she is being charged with something. if she is it will be an interesting case. what of the girl...what of her parents? do they not have some responsibility? it wasn't this woman who made the girl suicidal. i know of no one beyond the most fragile and disturbed who would kill themselves over such a thing

perhaps some ought to just think twice before they come to think ANYTHING on the internet matters too much

[Jude]

^ exactly. it takes two to tango. even on the internet.

their was a case about a woman pretending to be a teenage boy and she led a vulnerable and disturbed girl down her street to siucide. well, she didn't lead her....but her actions on the internet were such that she led her to believe an e romance was taking place...then broke her heart. the girl killed herself

now this woman is in her 40's, and i forget her motive but i think she is being charged with something. if she is it will be an interesting case. what of the girl...what of her parents? do they not have some responsibility? it wasn't this woman who made the girl suicidal. i know of no one beyond the most fragile and disturbed who would kill themselves over such a thing

perhaps some ought to just think twice before they come to think ANYTHING on the internet matters too much
That story is just plain ****ed up I don't even know what to think about that

[Iscariot]

i think if someone manipulates another person through a medium like the internet with the sole intent of driving them to self harm that should be an entirely punishable offense

[Jude]

It's impossible to judge the intent though as in the Pit with Jaylink

If Jaylink were somewhat a differnet personality and committed suicide after having his band and public self exposed to ridicule and so forth it would be hard to make a case because none of the people involved actually took what they were doing seriously or thought about the possibility of that happening (presumably)

[JohnXDoe]

That story is just plain ****ed up I don't even know what to think about that
yeah it was pretty sad. i think perhaps a civil suit might be in order. but the criminal justice system (as the article posted shows) has not quite caught up yet. i just don't want the government to take too much jurisdiction over what is SAID on the internet. i mean sticks and stones, right...

however some recourse is needed for those who may fall victim or prey, even if they are partly accountable, to people such as the woman i mention in my post

she sounds like she may have some issues of her own

[Iscariot]

i think the problem is that the internet grew too fast for the legal system to keep up maybe if they had started instituting regulations to begin with these things wouldn't happen so often but now they have a monster on their hands and everyone has been free to be relentlessly awful human beings for so long that they consider it a right now

[Jude]

But like i was saying, suppose Jaylink committed suicide do to one too many rounds of Pit abuse, imagine trying to build that case against the Pitizens involved

@Jared: and isn't the impracticality of regulating the internet a good argument for not wasting time and money on trying in the first place

I mean plotting terrorism via email is one thing or distributing child porn but hate mail?

[Iscariot]

It's impossible to judge the intent though as in the Pit with Jaylink

"kill yourself" would be pretty hard to misinterpret

it's easy to say, "oh yeah well hey i was joking" when you're trying to get out of trouble but i think taking certain phrases literally is the only way to get the point across

but yeah i get where you're coming from

[Jude]

"kill yourself" would be pretty hard to misinterpret

it's easy to say, "oh yeah well hey i was joking" when you're trying to get out of trouble but i think taking certain phrases literally is the only way to get the point across

but yeah i get where you're coming from

Yeah like i was saying imagine being the lawyer trying to build that case

And digging through years of MX archives to find basically daily occurrences of the same kind of thing over and over and none of it being taken remotely seriously

It would be a legal disaster.

[Iscariot]

the legal system has thrown money away on worse things

[Jude]

Well yeah but that isn't a good reason to throw more money away

[1338 h4x0r]

I have to LOL at the fact that Jaylink was dragged into this thread

[Jude]

Draggin him in here was the hardest work I ever did *collapses from exhaustion*



I give it 20 minutes till the mention of his name causes him to appear and start trolling

[JohnXDoe]

actually he was rolled into this thread but thats ok

[Jude]

Towed by a squadron of hummers

[1338 h4x0r]

I'm gasping from a double repgasm!

[Jude]

me too now I'm going to take a post-coital rep nap

[mph4ever]

I am practically a gynecologist and have never heard the word 'cunnus'!


thats because gynecologist deal with the inside, cunnus is the outside :rolleyes:


and what the fu'ck are you doing in a seminary?

[Sammy_L_D]

I thought most countries protected the freedom of speech. :upset:

Freedom of speech, however, should have limitations. As in, a societal understanding of when it is or isn't right to say certain things.

Let's say for example someone was exercising their rights to free speech by discussing the best way to lure a child into a van, or the best way to lynch a black man. Would you value their freedoms then?

[wartomods]

No one's honest on the internet, honestly.

that was an hell of a statment, or wasnt it

[mph4ever]

i think the internet should be run on the fundamentals of anarchy, its the lowest common denominator afterall

[Jude]

Freedom of speech, however, should have limitations.
Not really except in a few cases but they're not the cases you're about to mention

As in, a societal understanding of when it is or isn't right to say certain things.

Your understanding of that is retarded

Let's say for example someone was exercising their rights to free speech by discussing the best way to lure a child into a van, or the best way to lynch a black man. Would you value their freedoms then?
Yes
As long as they aren't actually luring or lynching then I have no business telling them they can't talk about it

[Dr Hooch]

Freedom of speech, however, should have limitations. As in, a societal understanding of when it is or isn't right to say certain things.

Let's say for example someone was exercising their rights to free speech by discussing the best way to lure a child into a van, or the best way to lynch a black man. Would you value their freedoms then?

Yes

I would hope plenty of people would also excersise their right to call these people disgusting

[Berner]

Freedom of speech, however, should have limitations. As in, a societal understanding of when it is or isn't right to say certain things.

Let's say for example someone was exercising their rights to free speech by discussing the best way to lure a child into a van, or the best way to lynch a black man. Would you value their freedoms then?

lrn2freedom

[siva_chair]

like when you said the beatles were american rock, i just should have said "don't take the internet seriously"

Yeah but there is a difference between you saying that and what I actually said. You are certainly free to make **** up all day if you want, but I don't have to ever take you seriously. No one probably should take you serious.

[mph4ever]

Yeah but there is a difference between you saying that and what I actually said. You are certainly free to make **** up all day if you want, but I don't have to ever take you seriously. No one probably should take you serious.

wait...........what? thats a little unfair coming from someone who claims the beatles are essentially american.

[mph4ever]

yeah it was pretty sad. i think perhaps a civil suit might be in order. but the criminal justice system (as the article posted shows) has not quite caught up yet. i just don't want the government to take too much jurisdiction over what is SAID on the internet. i mean sticks and stones, right...

however some recourse is needed for those who may fall victim or prey, even if they are partly accountable, to people such as the woman i mention in my post

she sounds like she may have some issues of her own

i think that story was about the relationship between that woman's daughter and the girl that topped herself, some rivalry going on and the mother decided to tkae it into her own hands. they were neighbours. thats just a fu'cked up person.

[Berner]

i think that story was about the relationship between that woman's daughter and the girl that topped herself, some rivalry going on and the mother decided to tkae it into her own hands. they were neighbours. thats just a fu'cked up person.Her daughter and that girl were friends who had a falling out. The mother was a vindictive psycho who drove the other girl to kill herself.

[mph4ever]

so will they start to generally police the internet for this type of situation, will we end up with the internet police?

[siva_chair]

wait...........what? thats a little unfair coming from someone who claims the beatles are essentially american.

I see your reading comprehension skills haven't improved much, have they?

If you really think that is what I was saying then you are delusional and beyond any sort of help.

[angry armadillo]

it's fine to say what you like on the internet just bear in mind anyone in the whole world can see it and go from there

[mph4ever]

I see your reading comprehension skills haven't improved much, have they?

If you really think that is what I was saying then you are delusional and beyond any sort of help.

sometimes i haven't got a clue what you are saying and most of the time i put it down to different cultures

[JohnXDoe]

there is but one culture. internet culture.....

[mph4ever]

no, internet will help ruin culture, dilute it everywhere.

[Dr Hooch]

you mean it will fix cultural snobbery and encourage widespread understanding through increased information?

win

[mph4ever]

whats wrong with cultural pride?

[Dr Hooch]

Appreciation is fine but pride just leads to superiority complexes

Pride blinds you to your faults and it blinds your children worse

[mph4ever]

and i think that the internet will dilute culture and as a consequence we lose something we appreciate or, at an extreme, have pride in.

without bordering on racism obviously,

do you think that we can't have cultural pride without racism?

[1338 h4x0r]

Appreciation is fine but pride just leads to superiority complexes

Pride blinds you to your faults and it blinds your children worse

SIEG HEIL!

i

[Dr Hooch]

and i think that the internet will dilute culture and as a consequence we lose something we appreciate or, at an extreme, have pride in.

without bordering on racism obviously,

do you think that we can't have cultural pride without racism?

Not automatically, but I feel cultural pride is a negative quality in a group or a person.

[mph4ever]

even in such groups as First Nations and the like?

[Berner]

even in such groups as First Nations and the like?

You must be from Canada if you're calling them that.

[mph4ever]

not at all, just i've been there on occasion and was made very aware of their cultural pride

[Dr Hooch]

even in such groups as First Nations and the like?

Don't see it as any different. No-one should make objective judgements that one culture should be "protected" from others.

[1338 h4x0r]

yeah cultural pride is pretty dumb tbh

[Rounder]

If you kill yourself over a perceived internet relationship then there are clearly other problems in your brain.

[mph4ever]

Don't see it as any different. No-one should make objective judgements that one culture should be "protected" from others.

it is important that we preserve culture and protect it from dilution. its even more important to educate people about how to better accept that people and races are diverse. it is these diverities of culture that make the world an interesting place. if we didnt have the influences of culture is areas such as clothing or music or food or religion then life would truly be drab.

[Dr Hooch]

If people are not free to enjoy culture in whatever way they please then culture becomes pointless.

Intefering will damage far more than leaving it be. What you're basically saying is that the best way to encourage mutual acceptance is to FORCE people to be more diverse; that is, to have less common ground

[Volumnius Flush]

Well if you ever plan on running for elected office it is best to stay off of the internet altogether.

[mph4ever]

If people are not free to enjoy culture in whatever way they please then culture becomes pointless.

Intefering will damage far more than leaving it be. What you're basically saying is that the best way to encourage mutual acceptance is to FORCE people to be more diverse; that is, to have less common ground

what i am suggesting is that we should help people appreciate the diversity of culture. i do believe that the internet will force common ground on people and dilute their cultures

why do you think cultural pride is a negative either for groups or for a person?

[Dr Hooch]

It leads to unneccessary self segregation and predjudice.

[mph4ever]

no, thats money, power and class not culture

[Dr Hooch]

:lol:

"Only these three social pressures can have any negative effects".

Do you want to justify that nonsense?

Furtherthemore those three things are actually nearly the same thing anyway.