Internet Flaming May Become Illegal

[touchdowntexas13]

[citation][nom]war2k9[/nom]FANBOYS give me somethings that i don't know. MS fanboys let me know what so special about your platform, and mac fanboys let me know what so special about your platform. please educate reader with your posting not just talk trash. THANK YOU[/citation]

Nice speech. However I don't think there was any trash talking on here so get off your high horse.

Here's an idea: try and educate yourself. There are hundreds of posts on this site alone dedicated solely to the reasons why a certain person chooses windows/osx. Before you start acting like you own this site or have made major contributions to it (4 posts lol) you should probably go look at some threads and heck you just might learn something. No one here needs to cater to your demands...

I could spend an hour writing why I choose windows, just like a someone else could spend an hour writing why they choose osx. But i'm not gonna waste my time informing you when all of the information can be found here and on other sites. You might actually come across a few of my posts on this site where i DID spend an hour writing my reasons for choosing windows.

Hope that clears things up.

 

[turboflame]

[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]This is what happens when the Democrats get in charge. Socialism at its finest, more like communism.[/citation]

I don't think you understand what socialism or communism is.

 

[Guest]

Soldier37: I take it you were born in 2009, and missed all of the Republican shenanigans of the past 8 years. Both sides suck, but one is definitely worse than the other...

 

[Supertrek32]

Good intentions, but completely baseless and impossible to enforce.

1) How exactly does one draw the line in, say, competitive gaming? Smack talk would be supposedly illegal, but most would say it's just part of the game, and trying to make the opponents perform at a lower level.

2) Prevention is the best policy. If someone's being seriously effected by online interactions, it falls upon them and their friends/family to do something. Better yet, it should be prevented before it even approaches a serious level. If you see a friend drinking more and more all the time, you have an intervention. Same thing.

3) There's no way to enforce this due to the vast nature of the web and the lack of national boundries. The criteria listed ("coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress") could also be applied to nearly anything. Coerce? An edgy ad. Intimidate? A heated debate about a semi-radical idea. Harass or Emotional Distress? Noe m0r3 tea-baggin on Haloz! There's just no way to enforce it cleanly or fairly.

 

[touchdowntexas13]

[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]This is what happens when the Democrats get in charge. Socialism at its finest, more like communism.[/citation]

Socialism and Communism is largely when a government tries to interfere with economic affairs. While this bill is certainly not socialistic or communistic, it shares a major theme: increased government activity and power. When the government decides to redefine what "free speech" is, they have increased their power. I do not think this bill will pass though.

 

[rdawise]

Like the previous poster said, good intentions, impossible to enforce. Most sites (Myspace included) have mechanism in place where you can report or block harassing messages. At that point that only thing you could do is fine Myspace for not imposing their terms of use. Should it be a bill..no there are already laws in place that deal with harassment and threats.

@soldier37
You really don't know what socialism or communism are. Stop listening to what Republicans tell you and do some research.

[citation][nom]touchdowntexas13[/nom] When the government decides to redefine what "free speech" is, they have increased their power. I do not think this bill will pass though.[/citation]

I don't think there main objective is to hender free speech (I am keeping my fingers crossed at least). Remember, you can't harass or threaten people "offline". This is an attempt to soldify that same principle "online".

 

[rdawise]

P.S.

I love how this article turned into Apple vs. PC

Funny Stuff...

 

[Guest]

Unfortunately, this leaves it up to a court of law to determine what "intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person" means. This will then open up the questions of "Well how do you define coerce, intimidate, harass, or an event that causes substantial emotional distress?" Which will then be dumbed down to the most sensitive (usually left-wing) individual's interpretation of these. We will all be going to a federal pound me in the a** facility because we hurt some Apple fanbois' feelings. This law is rediculously unnecessary and will ultimately infringe on free speech because the courts will look at it and say that the individual "perceived" that he was being coerced, intimidated, or harassed. This is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[touchdowntexas13]

[citation][nom]rdawise[/nom]Like the previous poster said, good intentions, impossible to enforce. Most sites (Myspace included) have mechanism in place where you can report or block harassing messages. At that point that only thing you could do is fine Myspace for not imposing their terms of use. Should it be a bill..no there are already laws in place that deal with harassment and threats.@soldier37You really don't know what socialism or communism are. Stop listening to what Republicans tell you and do some research.I don't think there main objective is to hender free speech (I am keeping my fingers crossed at least). Remember, you can't harass or threaten people "offline". This is an attempt to soldify that same principle "online".[/citation]

I agree that there are good intentions in the bill, but then again there are always good intentions. I'm just thinking that when they pass this bill there will be a huge grey area on what online harassment is. When they don't draw a clear line, the government will be given the ability to decide what is and isn't. That's what i am afraid of.

Not to mention harassment is such a major part of online gaming! Sure sometimes it gets out of hand, but it is also something that makes online gaming more competitive and fun. Are they going to take that away? I'm not so sure this bill would end up being a good thing. Especially when hundreds of ridiculous lawsuits start popping up over the internet. Like i said, there are good intentions, but i don't think the result would be good.

The best way to fight online harassment is simply to avoid it. Don't post on flame baited sites. Now online instant messaging and sexual harassment is a subject where i think revisions could be made. There are some pretty sick weirdos out there...

 

[touchdowntexas13]

I was writing my post so i didn't see his, but CAG404 pretty much sums up my fears with this bill. That's the logic i tried to employ.

 

[rdawise]

[citation][nom]CAG404[/nom]Unfortunately, this leaves it up to a court of law to determine what "intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person" means. This will then open up the questions of "Well how do you define coerce, intimidate, harass, or an event that causes substantial emotional distress?" Which will then be dumbed down to the most sensitive (usually left-wing) individual's interpretation of these. We will all be going to a federal pound me in the a** facility because we hurt some Apple fanbois' feelings. This law is rediculously unnecessary and will ultimately infringe on free speech because the courts will look at it and say that the individual "perceived" that he was being coerced, intimidated, or harassed. This is absolutely ludicrous.[/citation]

I agree with you to an extent. Again I say how do you is harassment determined "offline"...by the court. It is there discretion to determine if you harassed somebody or not be it sexual, verbal, emotional or whatever type harassment is out there. Is your fear that they will apply that same logic online?

I agree with touchdowntexas (by the way have to throw in "Go Longhorns" just from the name) that trash talking in gaming is a huge part of gaming that does murk the water. I again stress that you have to only ask that whom ever the content provider is enforce their own harassment rules. Of course someone has to report it first thats where the rule becomes more black and white.

Think of it like this you're at work and you comment that a woman at the office looks nice today. She feels it's sexual harassment and reports you and decides to take you to court. It is now up to the court to decide if you did indeed harass her.

Now you're online and comment about a woman's profile picture. She thinks you're comment is inappropriate. Most websites have mechanism where you can report ToS breeches or block unwanted commentary. She can follow those routes. She does this, the users now uses another computer (because IP was blocked), another identity (because account deactivated) to proceed his commentary or become an "online stalker" type. What is here next action. Should she now be forced to abandon her favorite webstie because of another's pervision? WOuldn't that be a violation of her rights?

Again I agree that there are laws in place that handle this type of action and this is completely redundant. But again I say good intention.

 

[rdawise]

EDIT
Website
User

need an edit button...

 

[rdawise]

Edit number 2:
Again I say how do you is harassment determined "offline"...by the court.

Should be:
Again I say how is harassment determined "offline"...by the courts.

 

[demonhorde665]

[citation][nom]kyeana[/nom]Making flaming illegal would be about as effective as making it illegal for water to be wet[/citation]


hmmm i'm no fan boy my self, however i'd liek to say youa re qutie a dumbass , in all reality apple fanboys start jsut as many flame wars as MS fan boys ... and quite hoenstly i'm sick of both groups,

owning a pc that looks like a pre-teen girl's lunch box , is NOT cool.
owning a pc with windows doesnt amke you cool either
nothign that relates to PC's and or macs , will evern make any one cool , it jsut makes you a dork, nerd , and or geek

so to both camps I say SHUT THE F UP !!!

YOU ARE NOT COOL, and certainly NOT COOL becuase you own a pc or mac (which is just a stupid name apple give thier PC's)

 

[touchdowntexas13]

See when you say the rule becomes black and white when someone reports it, that is something i am afraid of. I foresee plenty of people "reporting" they were harassed just to try and get some sort of monetary collection. This happens all of the time today offline, so i would think the same will happen online. A rule cannot be based upon the honesty of an individual, simply because honesty is a rarity in this day and age and there will be way too many people abusing that power.

I would agree, logically speaking, that a crime offline should be a crime online. However, the system is already flawed in that people get charged with harassment for things that were not really harassment to begin with. I would like to see the offline system mended (if that is possible) before it is implemented into the online world where it will be magnified ten-fold.

All in all i would like to see clauses in the bill that point out CONTENT PROVIDER DISCRETION before people just start filing law suits. There should also be something within those clauses about keeping online gaming the way it is.

 

[touchdowntexas13]

woa this thread got pretty random in my 10 minute absence

 

[kewl munky]

Internet is serious business guise!

 

[bucifer]

Saying goodbye to the declaration of independence one small step a a time..

 

[eddieroolz]

Is it just me, or does it seems like every single government agency in the US has begun an attempt to hijack the control of internet from the users?

 

[Thor]

Why Politician are so idiots?
Why Politician want nobody talk,saying lie, except themself?

They are already law against criminal.
Why want more to hide all words?

A say, dictionary will have only 100 words.
All other will be censored.

Politician are just shit !