|
Not to belittle the suicide that was mentioned in the article, but come on! OMG they wern't nice to me on the message boards, or they told me to shut up in the chat rooms. WTF!! If ya' ain't having the experience ya' want just log out or flag the comment if thats an option. This is why we have such ill prepared adults in the US today, an entire generation is being told "Everyone has to be nice to you and nobody is allowed to say mean things." sorry the real world sucks, nobody is holdin' my hand as I go thru it. Get some thicker skin, some sense in the head, and grow a set people! (not directed at anyone in particular... please don't arrest me) ;p
Holy word i cant say....
That is...going to be completely unpolicable. Any law that cannot be enforced may as well not be on the statute.
If teenage kids can´t handle online bullying and flamewars, then don´t give them access to it - this is the parents responsibility first and foremost. This law won´t help a bit. Bullying is not nice, sure, but a law won´t make it stop. This law is simply impossible to enforce, and thus, pointless.
Stefan
Oh, please. The police are far too busy making sure our elected representatives aren't so corrupt, it's actually illegal.How can you say that to me? I'm so upset!
The sound of police sirens in the background. They're coming for you, Watson!
In fairness, that is incorrect. They arn't 'corrupt' they are just muppets who didn't sort out an expenses system that didn't make them look like lieing cheating bar stewards.
Political Corruption, as in private interested paying for political influence, is a thankfully very rare here in the uk, compaired to many countries.
|
Oh, please. The police are far too busy making sure our elected representatives aren't so corrupt, it's actually illegal.How can you say that to me? I'm so upset!
The sound of police sirens in the background. They're coming for you, Watson!
In fairness, that is incorrect. They arn't 'corrupt' they are just muppets who didn't sort out an expenses system that didn't make them look like lieing cheating bar stewards.
Political Corruption, as in private interested paying for political influence, is a thankfully very rare here in the uk, compaired to many countries.
True. However, for humour purposes, I am prepared to be totally outraged by it.
Whole thread.
Article too.
ROFL.
Political corruption = taking money for giving in to private interests?
Hardly. Political corruption is when you use your mandate for things that mandate does not cover. Letting taxpayers pay your bills is a schoolbook example of political corruption. Other examples are: Putting secrecy stamps on documents that do not qualify for secrecy because those documents would be embarrassing to you, interfering with investigations regarding yourself or your political friends such as putting pressure on judges to avoid certain outcomes, entering into deals you know are not in the best interests of the public, even something as simple as not working toward fulfilling the election promises you made, if you have the chance, is corruption. In short, any time you get something valuable, which in no way needs to be money, that you shouldn't get, you are corrupted.
And corruption is absolutely rampant in the UK these days, to nobody's surprise.
Wow you would think that they would actually enforce existing laws. You know the ones they already have for threatening behaviour, stalking, racial vilification, and common assault.
Then again some politicians have to justify their existence.
I could flame the Poms (Aub, Zombie, Watson), but they know how much better we Australians are already.
Wow you would think that they would actually enforce existing laws. You know the ones they already have for threatening behaviour, stalking, racial vilification, and common assault.
Then again some politicians have to justify their existence.
I could flame the Poms (Aub, Zombie, Watson), but they know how much better we Australians are already.
Ah shut it skippy.
Ah shut it skippy.Wow you would think that they would actually enforce existing laws. You know the ones they already have for threatening behaviour, stalking, racial vilification, and common assault.
Then again some politicians have to justify their existence.
I could flame the Poms (Aub, Zombie, Watson), but they know how much better we Australians are already.
Hey I would be careful we could always send you more bad soap operas.
Hey I would be careful we could always send you more bad soap operas.Ah shut it skippy.Wow you would think that they would actually enforce existing laws. You know the ones they already have for threatening behaviour, stalking, racial vilification, and common assault.
Then again some politicians have to justify their existence.
I could flame the Poms (Aub, Zombie, Watson), but they know how much better we Australians are already.
Do your worst. We'll retaliate by sending you corrination street... It isn't like i watch soaps.
|
|
Hey I would be careful we could always send you more bad soap operas.Ah shut it skippy.Wow you would think that they would actually enforce existing laws. You know the ones they already have for threatening behaviour, stalking, racial vilification, and common assault.
Then again some politicians have to justify their existence.
I could flame the Poms (Aub, Zombie, Watson), but they know how much better we Australians are already.
Ok quick off topic question... What did the US do to piss Australia off?
I mean why did we get Mel Gibson, Nicole Kidman, AND Keith Urban?
Hey I would be careful we could always send you more bad soap operas.Ah shut it skippy.Wow you would think that they would actually enforce existing laws. You know the ones they already have for threatening behaviour, stalking, racial vilification, and common assault.
Then again some politicians have to justify their existence.
I could flame the Poms (Aub, Zombie, Watson), but they know how much better we Australians are already.
Ok quick off topic question... What did the US do to piss Australia off?
I mean why did we get Mel Gibson, Nicole Kidman, AND Keith Urban?
I'll swap you Nicole Kidman for 'Home and Away'.
Not to belittle the suicide that was mentioned in the article, but come on! OMG they wern't nice to me on the message boards, or they told me to shut up in the chat rooms. WTF!! If ya' ain't having the experience ya' want just log out or flag the comment if thats an option. This is why we have such ill prepared adults in the US today, an entire generation is being told "Everyone has to be nice to you and nobody is allowed to say mean things." sorry the real world sucks, nobody is holdin' my hand as I go thru it. Get some thicker skin, some sense in the head, and grow a set people! (not directed at anyone in particular... please don't arrest me) ;p
I take it that you don't know much about the suicide mentioned in the article, because it certainly goes way beyond "oh buhu, someone didn't like what I wrote on a messageboard." Way, way beyond that. And in that case, you do actually belittle the case.
That being said, I think current laws already in place should be able to cover all of this anyway, if anything is missing, a small addendum to update the text to include newer technology should be sufficient."Ordinary" flamewars on messageboards shouldn't be treated as criminal cases, whereas direct and harmful bullying should already be covered by existing laws.
|
|
Not to belittle the suicide that was mentioned in the article, but come on! OMG they wern't nice to me on the message boards, or they told me to shut up in the chat rooms. WTF!! If ya' ain't having the experience ya' want just log out or flag the comment if thats an option. This is why we have such ill prepared adults in the US today, an entire generation is being told "Everyone has to be nice to you and nobody is allowed to say mean things." sorry the real world sucks, nobody is holdin' my hand as I go thru it. Get some thicker skin, some sense in the head, and grow a set people! (not directed at anyone in particular... please don't arrest me) ;pI take it that you don't know much about the suicide mentioned in the article, because it certainly goes way beyond "oh buhu, someone didn't like what I wrote on a messageboard." Way, way beyond that. And in that case, you do actually belittle the case.
That being said, I think current laws already in place should be able to cover all of this anyway, if anything is missing, a small addendum to update the text to include newer technology should be sufficient.
"Ordinary" flamewars on messageboards shouldn't be treated as criminal cases, whereas direct and harmful bullying should already be covered by existing laws.
I'm sure that what drove the kid to such extreme steps must have been much worse than what I was talking about. But we do not need more and more and more legeslation. Exsisting laws will work just fine. I'm sorry if you think I'm bellteling this kids death, not my intent. However you can't tell me that he just could not have removed himself from the attacks, I know this may sound odd to some but you can log off. It is a tragedy that someone felt the need to kill themselves over the freaking internet, but it's also just stupid. When I got picked on in school (mainly for being a D&D player) I dealt with it. I didn't go out and off myself. We live in an age where people sue for the drop of a hat ("I spilled my coffee and it was hot" ring a bell?) and we need to step back and take a momment to re-evaluate our sensitivities.
|
|
Hey I would be careful we could always send you more bad soap operas.Ah shut it skippy.Wow you would think that they would actually enforce existing laws. You know the ones they already have for threatening behaviour, stalking, racial vilification, and common assault.
Then again some politicians have to justify their existence.
I could flame the Poms (Aub, Zombie, Watson), but they know how much better we Australians are already.
Ok quick off topic question... What did the US do to piss Australia off?
I mean why did we get Mel Gibson, Nicole Kidman, AND Keith Urban?
Mel Gibson was born in Peekskill, NY. His family moved to Australia when he was 12. He's American. Can't blame the Aussies for that one...
|
|
Mel Gibson was born in Peekskill, NY. His family moved to Australia when he was 12. He's American. Can't blame the Aussies for that one...Hey I would be careful we could always send you more bad soap operas.Ah shut it skippy.Wow you would think that they would actually enforce existing laws. You know the ones they already have for threatening behaviour, stalking, racial vilification, and common assault.
Then again some politicians have to justify their existence.
I could flame the Poms (Aub, Zombie, Watson), but they know how much better we Australians are already.
Ok quick off topic question... What did the US do to piss Australia off?
I mean why did we get Mel Gibson, Nicole Kidman, AND Keith Urban?
Well crap! Can't we send him somewhere else anyway?
I take it that you don't know much about the suicide mentioned in the article, because it certainly goes way beyond "oh buhu, someone didn't like what I wrote on a messageboard." Way, way beyond that. And in that case, you do actually belittle the case.
The point is that the proposed "remedy" bill is worded so that "boo hoo" does indeed become legally actionable. The intent of a written law, and the "common sense" interpretation of it, are meaningless in a legal context, unfortunately. What matters there is the letter of the law, and the letter of this one says that a prosecutor has carte blanche to lock up pretty much anyone he or she chooses: political opponents railing against a proposed bill, for example. Just when I thought the Patriot Act was the ultimate legal travesty, in terms of well-meaning but poorly-worded and overly-broad legislation giving an unreasonable scope of power to anyone caring to wield it... then my office mate (a lawyer) clued me into what the "sex offender" legislation is being used for (a guy pees outside; hard time in prison and he's on the list the rest of his life). But now THIS proposed bill has the potential to make both of those appear like minor peccadilloes.
|
|
I take it that you don't know much about the suicide mentioned in the article, because it certainly goes way beyond "oh buhu, someone didn't like what I wrote on a messageboard." Way, way beyond that. And in that case, you do actually belittle the case.The point is that the proposed "remedy" bill is worded so that "boo hoo" does indeed become legally actionable. The intent of a written law, and the "common sense" interpretation of it, are meaningless in a legal context, unfortunately. What matters there is the letter of the law, and the letter of this one says that a prosecutor has carte blanche to lock up pretty much anyone he or she chooses: political opponents railing against a proposed bill, for example. Just when I thought the Patriot Act was the ultimate legal travesty, in terms of well-meaning but poorly-worded and overly-broad legislation giving an unreasonable scope of power to anyone caring to wield it... then my office mate (a lawyer) clued me into what the "sex offender" legislation is being used for (a guy pees outside; hard time in prison). But this proposed bill has the potential to make both of those appear like minor peccadilloes.
Yep, a childhood friend of mine did time in NY for being a "sex offender" when he walked home from bar after getting drunk (didn't want a DWI), took a leak in Neawah Park (behind a tree) and was hauled in for indecent exposure and sexual assault when a jogger saw him.
Yep, a childhood friend of mine did time in NY for being a "sex offender" when he walked home from bar after getting drunk (didn't want a DWI), took a leak in Neawah Park (behind a tree) and was hauled in for indecent exposure and sexual assault when a jogger saw him.
And now he's not only listed as a felon when he applies for jobs, but if I understant it correctly he's on the sex offender list for life -- can't live in most places, has to go door-to-door (essentially begging the neighbors to kill him, unless he's very good at explanations...).
The penalty for peeing behind a tree is worse than the penalty for murder. That's exactly where well-meaning, but overly-broad laws get us. This one being proposed has the potential to be even worse.
Let's not forget all the teens being charged with distribution of child pornography for sending naked pics of themselves via cellphone to their boy/girlfriends...
This bill is a giant mess waiting to happen and will hit a first amendment wall if it's instituted. If I can be arrested for posting something on the internet that I could say legally face to face, where's the justice in that?
I'm sure that what drove the kid to such extreme steps must have been much worse than what I was talking about. But we do not need more and more and more legeslation. Exsisting laws will work just fine. I'm sorry if you think I'm bellteling this kids death, not my intent. However you can't tell me that he just could not have removed himself from the attacks, I know this may sound odd to some but you can log off. It is a tragedy that someone felt the need to kill themselves over the freaking internet, but it's also just stupid. When I got picked on in school (mainly for being a D&D player) I dealt with it. I didn't go out and off myself. We live in an age where people sue for the drop of a hat ("I spilled my coffee and it was hot" ring a bell?) and we need to step back and take a momment to re-evaluate our sensitivities.
First of all, she, not he.
You can read a summary of the whole thing here.Second, I fully agree that coddling and an overly big sense of entitlement is damaging to large parts of the population growing up right now.
The case mentioned in the article, though, isn't par for that.
]The point is that the proposed "remedy" bill is worded so that "boo hoo" does indeed become legally actionable. The intent of a written law, and the "common sense" interpretation of it, are meaningless in a legal context, unfortunately. What matters there is the letter of the law, and the letter of this one says that a prosecutor has carte blanche to lock up pretty much anyone he or she chooses: political opponents railing against a proposed bill, for example. Just when I thought the Patriot Act was the ultimate legal travesty, in terms of well-meaning but poorly-worded and overly-broad legislation giving an unreasonable scope of power to anyone caring to wield it... then my office mate (a lawyer) clued me into what the "sex offender" legislation is being used for (a guy pees outside; hard time in prison and he's on the list the rest of his life). But now THIS proposed bill has the potential to make both of those appear like minor peccadilloes.
Which I fully agree with and also indicated in the last part of my response. Current laws should be able to cover this.
And, yes, some of the existing laws are already worded so broad in terms that they are also applied in cases where they really shouldn't.So, tightening of existing laws and their wording should be the way to go, not implement even more, just as wide reaching laws.
|
|
Forgive me I meant she but typed he anyway. I had heard about it, but thanks for link, it gave me some more details. Like I said it is a tragedy that it happened. I have 3 kids, 2 sons and a little girl of my own, so no I'm not belittling her death. But does anyone really think that some new overly broad restrictions that have way to much potential for abuse are the answer, or should we parents get more involved in overseeing our childrens lives, both online and off.
This would be one more reason why my kids will not have Myspace accounts. To many parents (and I'm not sayin' hers, I don't know them.) don't take the time to check out whats being said online with their kids. That is also a tragedy.
Holy...
This is really not good. It's also foolish. It's like the Kender Tax: Internet and law enforcement really don't mix.
Holy...
This is really not good. It's also foolish. It's like the Kender Tax: Internet and law enforcement really don't mix.
Well, you can´t just turn a blind eye towards the internet regarding illegal activities like child abuse, spreading violent extremism and other nasty stuff. But it is just impossible to control the whole thing, so the authorities should concentrate on serious cybercrimes. Bullying that leads to suicide is quite serious and should be prosecuted, but wording laws in a way that any and all negative statements made are open to prosecution leads to overreactions, as seen in the "peeing in the park" example above. Being moderate and realistic in prosecuting cybercrimes would be the order of the day, not ever-increasing laws.
Stefan
Holy word i cant say....
That is...going to be completely unpolicable. Any law that cannot be enforced may as well not be on the statute.
If they try to stop online bullying online, they have to try to stop bullying in RL too, or face discrimination charges.
|
|
If they try to stop online bullying online, they have to try to stop bullying in RL too, or face discrimination charges.Holy word i cant say....
That is...going to be completely unpolicable. Any law that cannot be enforced may as well not be on the statute.
Already trying that too. And it's not working out so well, I have a 12 yr old nephew that was led out of his school last year in handcuffs. You want to know what heinous act he commited? The charge was sexual assault, pretty bad huh? He snapped the girl in front of him's training bra strap! And then the girls parents tried to sue my mother over it! Thank God their stopping such dangerous criminals. ;p
Already trying that too. And it's not working out so well, I have a 12 yr old nephew that was led out of his school last year in handcuffs. You want to know what heinous act he commited? The charge was sexual assault, pretty bad huh? He snapped the girl in front of him's training bra strap! And then the girls parents tried to sue my mother over it! Thank God their stopping such dangerous criminals. ;pIf they try to stop online bullying online, they have to try to stop bullying in RL too, or face discrimination charges.Holy word i cant say....
That is...going to be completely unpolicable. Any law that cannot be enforced may as well not be on the statute.
That's all he did? Heck, if we would have had some of these insane laws when I was a kid I probably would have gotten the death penalty.
|
|
Yeah I know. I woulda gotten' a double tap to the head behind the gym.
But it proves as an exellent example of these laws get interpreted, how many of us guys did the exact same thing when we were kids? Heck, I still do it from time to time (with my close female friends). And at one point or another we've all "bullied" someone, probably not the extremes that we're talking about here, but we've done it. After years of getting picked on in school for being a gamer geek, I started into martial arts... heavy. So when the new school year started I started picking on the jocks that picked on me, so badly in fact that 16 yrs later they still know who I am at that school. Now thats bad.
|
Yeah I know. I woulda gotten' a double tap to the head behind the gym.
But it proves as an exellent example of these laws get interpreted, how many of us guys did the exact same thing when we were kids? Heck, I still do it from time to time (with my close female friends). And at one point or another we've all "bullied" someone, probably not the extremes that we're talking about here, but we've done it. After years of getting picked on in school for being a gamer geek, I started into martial arts... heavy. So when the new school year started I started picking on the jocks that picked on me, so badly in fact that 16 yrs later they still know who I am at that school. Now thats bad.
Not necessarily. You give gamers in that school hope, for they too could learn to defend themselves. Soon, 'geeks' will cease to exixst there, instead they are called [insert Morrluck's RL name here].
Forgive me I meant she but typed he anyway. I had heard about it, but thanks for link, it gave me some more details. Like I said it is a tragedy that it happened. I have 3 kids, 2 sons and a little girl of my own, so no I'm not belittling her death. But does anyone really think that some new overly broad restrictions that have way to much potential for abuse are the answer, or should we parents get more involved in overseeing our childrens lives, both online and off.
This would be one more reason why my kids will not have Myspace accounts. To many parents (and I'm not sayin' hers, I don't know them.) don't take the time to check out whats being said online with their kids. That is also a tragedy.
I didn't really think you had any bad intentions with your post, just wanted to provide some more information about how bad things really CAN go. That said, such behaviour should already be covered by existing laws.
I also fully agree that parents should take a more active role in their kids' online presence, to the extent it's possible. It's one thing to monitor online activity at home, but as is often the case, if they can't do it at home they'll just do it at someone else's home (with less "strict" parents) or even from public pcs (school, library etc.).I also agree that these kind of laws are ripe for abuse and can, in some cases, actually do more harm than good (we've had numerous examples here in this thread already).
Anyway, speaking of bullying, peer pressure, intimidation and such, I'm off to see Gran Torino at the theater before it's taken off.
If that was my kid, there ain't no telling what I'd do.
That being said,....I don't see how this law would do much of anything to prevent this sort of thing.
It probably would not have prevented the incident. The trouble is, the woman who did this gets off because there's nothing on the books with which to punish her (except the hate mails she's probably receiving ever since her black deed came to light--ah, irony).
|
|
Forgive me I meant she but typed he anyway. I had heard about it, but thanks for link, it gave me some more details. Like I said it is a tragedy that it happened. I have 3 kids, 2 sons and a little girl of my own, so no I'm not belittling her death. But does anyone really think that some new overly broad restrictions that have way to much potential for abuse are the answer, or should we parents get more involved in overseeing our childrens lives, both online and off.
This would be one more reason why my kids will not have Myspace accounts. To many parents (and I'm not sayin' hers, I don't know them.) don't take the time to check out whats being said online with their kids. That is also a tragedy.I didn't really think you had any bad intentions with your post, just wanted to provide some more information about how bad things really CAN go. That said, such behaviour should already be covered by existing laws.
I also fully agree that parents should take a more active role in their kids' online presence, to the extent it's possible. It's one thing to monitor online activity at home, but as is often the case, if they can't do it at home they'll just do it at someone else's home (with less "strict" parents) or even from public pcs (school, library etc.).
I also agree that these kind of laws are ripe for abuse and can, in some cases, actually do more harm than good (we've had numerous examples here in this thread already).Anyway, speaking of bullying, peer pressure, intimidation and such, I'm off to see Gran Torino at the theater before it's taken off.
Awsome flick, one of his best IMO, hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
|
Yep, a childhood friend of mine did time in NY for being a "sex offender" when he walked home from bar after getting drunk (didn't want a DWI), took a leak in Neawah Park (behind a tree) and was hauled in for indecent exposure and sexual assault when a jogger saw him.
Holy Crap.
Imagine what you'd get these days for taking a whizz on the Alamo?
