backtop


Print 197 comment(s) - last by cruisin3style.. on Oct 11 at 2:59 PM

Free speech? Fuhgeddaboudit!

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

However, that hasn't stopped state and federal officials to creatively redefine what "freedom of speech" means.  Of late there have been multiple attempts [1][2] to legislate digital censorship, with government officials looking to decide what forms of online speech they feel aren't okay and make them illegal.

The latest effort on this front comes from four Democratic New York state senators, who have published a report entiteld "Cyberbullying: A Report on Bullying in a Digital Age".  In that report, Sen. Jeff Klein, Diane Savino, David Carlucci, and David Valesky argue that the First Amendment has been long misinterpreted by politicians and courts and really means that free speech is a privilege (not a right), which can be taken away.

They write:

Proponents of a more refined First Amendment argue that this freedom should be treated not as a right but as a privilege — a special entitlement granted by the state on a conditional basis that can be revoked if it is ever abused or maltreated.

The argument that free speech was not intended as a protected right seems rather baffling given that the First Amendment is part of the "Bill of Rights."

Burning Constitution
State Senators argue that Free Speech is a privilege, not a right.  [Source: Conservative Action Alerts]

Of course they argue that state politicians should be tasked with creating laws of what they feel constitutes "abuse" of free speech and grounds for censorship.  According to their full report, possible "abusive" speech that they feel should be banned includes:
  1. Leaving hurtful messages online:
    "LEAVING IMPROPER MESSAGES ON ONLINE MESSAGE BOARDS OR SENDING HURTFUL AND DAMAGING MESSAGES TO OTHERS;"
  2. Flaming people online:
    ""FLAMING" (HURTFUL, CRUEL, AND OFTENTIMES INTIMIDATING MESSAGES INTENDED TO INFLAME, INSIGHT, OR ENRAGE);"
  3. "Happy slapping" (a 2005 meme that the befuddled Senators appear to mistake for a current problem):
    ""HAPPY SLAPPING" (RECORDING PHYSICAL ASSAULTS ON MOBILE PHONES OR DIGITAL CAMERAS, THEN DISTRIBUTING THEM TO OTHERS);"
  4. Trolling online:
    ""TROLLING" (DELIBERATELY AND DECEITFULLY POSTING INFORMATION TO ENTICE GENUINELY HELPFUL PEOPLE TO RESPOND (OFTEN EMOTIONALLY), OFTEN DONE TO PROVOKE OTHERS);"
  5. Exclusion of people:
    "EXCLUSION (INTENTIONALLY AND CRUELLY EXCLUDING SOMEONE FROM AN ONLINE GROUP)."
Such legislation are perceived by some as an overreaction of extreme recent incidents of cyberbullying.  However, it's hard to avoid the possibility that such censorship couldn't be abused by politicians to silence political rivals.

Trolling
Should trolling be illegal? [Source: WTF Concept]

After all, if you can put someone in speech for "trolling" and "leaving hurtful messages on online message boards", does that mean ruling politicians can imprison those who criticize them online?  Clearly that's how officials in other countries like China have used similar laws.  Is the U.S. headed down a similar road?

The Senators have used their report to draft a proposed law.

Under the proposed law, "offensive" speech would become constitute Third-Degree Stalking, a Class A Misdemeanor.  And if someone commits suicide due to online harassment -- or "bullycide" as the report calls it -- the harassers can be charged with Second-Degree Manslaughter, a Class C Felony.

Please share your opinions with us.  Is Sen. Klein (D) right -- "Our laws are not keeping pace with technology?"  Is free speech no longer a feasible right in the digital era?

Source: New York State Senate



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I hope this is April fools in october
By Masospaghetti on 10/5/2011 3:56:23 PM , Rating: 5
I don't know what's more ridiculous... the fact that this is even a bill, or that we voted these fools into office.

Seriously - if you find message boards offensive, either grow up and get over it, or don't use message boards.




RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By ClownPuncher on 10/5/2011 3:58:29 PM , Rating: 5
I vote we make being a NY Democrat illegal.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By MrBlastman on 10/5/2011 4:08:00 PM , Rating: 4
That'd put most of the state in jail as far as I can tell (or at least the NYC area). I love New Yorkers in a personality sense--they're hilarious to deal with in a good way. When you get down to their politics though, I can't help but roll my eyes often.

This is disgusting. These democrats shouldn't be in office if they misinterpret our documents so blatantly. It's like the voters looked at the gene pool and then with a scraper, scraped the remnants of genes off the floor of an abortion clinic garbage bin after the good stuff had been used and then constructed these fools and put them into office. I might of considered the gurney of an execution chamber but the liberals don't believe in that.

Nasty.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By mcnabney on 10/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By phxfreddy on 10/5/2011 5:18:47 PM , Rating: 3
Hands down the Democrat party is the anti rights party.

They are party of slavery after all. Seriously....

-1- taxes ? democrats want more

-2- guns? democrats say that is not a right

-3- etc...the list goes on and on


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By bupkus on 10/6/2011 8:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
The list goes on and on?

Can't even find a 3rd complaint?
What kind of Republican are you?


By Sazabi19 on 10/6/2011 4:20:22 PM , Rating: 4
-3- Favor big govt. that monitors everything

Better?


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By shin0bi272 on 10/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By cruisin3style on 10/11/11, Rating: 0
By cruisin3style on 10/11/2011 2:59:40 PM , Rating: 1
damn "if you use bad language you get rated down automatically" policy

stop trampling on my first amendment rights dailytech

;)


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By JMichaels on 10/6/2011 5:53:23 PM , Rating: 1
Drugs, gambling, prostitution, abortion, gay marriage, Patriot Act, etc. are you REALLY gonna say the Democrats are the anti-rights party, really? How are high taxes (which I am not a fan of) anti-rights??? Come on dude.


By RightWingExtremist on 10/8/2011 8:32:24 AM , Rating: 2
High taxes are anti rights cause they unfairly tax one group and not the other.They want to take 40-100% of the riches money while the upper working class only pays 15-25%.Then the welfare rats get negative taxes.They get paid back more money than they pay into the tax system.Some times in the thousand and tens of thousands of negative taxes.53% of America pay taxes.That means 47% pay ZERO.35% are under 18 or Retired so that leaves 12% of the population too sorry to work mooching off the 53% that are paying the taxes.


By shaidorsai on 10/10/2011 5:21:48 PM , Rating: 2
How are hi taxes anti-rights ? wow really ? You never took a history class I guess. That's almost as bad as the Democrap in the article.

Serious question now...how is it the people in New York haven't impeached these bozo's? A direct attack on the Bill of Rights should be enough to wake up even the dipshits in New York.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By MrBlastman on 10/5/2011 5:33:27 PM , Rating: 2
Oh be fair, the Democrats have used them also in the 2004 Democratic National Convention where they made them out of concrete wall and placed them out of view of the actual convention center.

Free Speech zones are a travesty. Anyone that endorses them should be thrown out of our country. They don't deserve to be an American. I don't care what party they are with.


By priusone on 10/6/2011 12:49:16 AM , Rating: 3
Doesn't the 'free speech zones' protect the silent majority from the few loud minority?


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By ekv on 10/5/2011 7:05:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Free Speech Zones
You mean like what our constitution guarantees? [Perhaps give an instance].


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By Close04 on 10/6/2011 2:35:20 AM , Rating: 3
I don't know about this but shouldn't "democrats" promote democracy? As in "the people's agenda" not "hey look, my own personal agenda"?

It's becoming "land of the free... to do what they are told".


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By MrBungle123 on 10/6/2011 10:57:14 AM , Rating: 3
Im guessing the reference in the name of the democrat party is "democracy"... as in the party with 51 of 100 votes gets its way mob rule. Not to be confused with a republic which we are (supposed) to be where it takes a significant majortity to exercise a groups political will.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By bh192012 on 10/6/11, Rating: 0
By shaidorsai on 10/10/2011 5:25:18 PM , Rating: 3
I would agree the Electoral College is a joke and nothing but a power grab. But to suggest we would be better off with Al Gore just removes any chance you had of making sense. Bush might not have been great on everything but Al Gore would have been a complete disaster.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By Argon18 on 10/6/2011 12:23:21 PM , Rating: 3
The Democratic Party promotes Democracy? LMAO, what?? Perhaps when it suits them. And when it doesn't, they just ram it down our throats with legislation, because they're arrogant enough to think that they know better than everyone else.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By Piiman on 10/6/2011 4:14:48 PM , Rating: 1
Like the Republicans never did this during their 8 years under GWBush? LOL hypocrite.


By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 9:17:29 PM , Rating: 5
There's as many glass houses as there are stones at DT. Pointing that out won't cause any new synaptic activity.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By MrBungle123 on 10/6/2011 6:09:11 PM , Rating: 2
Oh no a slim majority "ramming things down our throats" is exactly what a "democracy" is which is why we were founded as a republic.

Democracy (mob rule): 51 of 100 votes has all the power does what they want.

Republic (example): need 66 of 100 votes to do anything.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By SilthDraeth on 10/7/2011 8:01:32 PM , Rating: 3
And even that is wrong. A republic protects the rights of the minority, and even the majority through a Constitution limiting it.


By YashBudini on 10/7/2011 11:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
OK, so who does a plutarchy protect?


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By Manch on 10/6/2011 9:45:32 AM , Rating: 2
I thought the entire US was a free speech zone?


By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 9:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
In a way we do, all speech is free, it's only when money talks that anyone listens though.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By Samus on 10/6/2011 4:08:41 AM , Rating: 1
Unless they're pulling a Rick Perry and plan to remove themselves from the union, they obviously can't legally do this, so the whole thing is moot.


By MrBungle123 on 10/6/2011 11:00:08 AM , Rating: 2
moot yes, however it is scary that people in power are so ignorant of the constitution and that they would even want to push such an agenda.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By masamasa on 10/5/2011 7:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
If they take away these they'll be nobody left on-line!!! =P

Leaving hurtful messages online:
"LEAVING IMPROPER MESSAGES ON ONLINE MESSAGE BOARDS OR SENDING HURTFUL AND DAMAGING MESSAGES TO OTHERS;"
Flaming people online:
""FLAMING" (HURTFUL, CRUEL, AND OFTENTIMES INTIMIDATING MESSAGES INTENDED TO INFLAME, INSIGHT, OR ENRAGE);"
"Happy slapping" (a 2005 meme that the befuddled Senators appear to mistake for a current problem):
""HAPPY SLAPPING" (RECORDING PHYSICAL ASSAULTS ON MOBILE PHONES OR DIGITAL CAMERAS, THEN DISTRIBUTING THEM TO OTHERS);"
Trolling online:
""TROLLING" (DELIBERATELY AND DECEITFULLY POSTING INFORMATION TO ENTICE GENUINELY HELPFUL PEOPLE TO RESPOND (OFTEN EMOTIONALLY), OFTEN DONE TO PROVOKE OTHERS);"
Exclusion of people:
"EXCLUSION (INTENTIONALLY AND CRUELLY EXCLUDING SOMEONE FROM AN ONLINE GROUP)."


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By wookie1 on 10/6/2011 1:09:10 PM , Rating: 5
I find these suggestions and this message from these senators to be very offensive and hurtful.

Since I am hurt and offended, by their logic,they should not be allowed the "priveledge" of expressing these views. If they disagree, I will feel bullied by these people in position of power.


By ShaolinSoccer on 10/7/2011 2:55:26 PM , Rating: 2
Give this man a +6


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By slickr on 10/6/2011 4:23:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah I want to know who put these criminals in office?

I mean these guys are not even that bad, its the people who are putting them in office.

Someone should have their heads examined.


By bupkus on 10/6/2011 8:43:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, declare them insane and institutionalize them.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By Masospaghetti on 10/5/2011 4:08:21 PM , Rating: 5
What if I found this bill so offensive that I committed suicide? I hope these NY senators enjoy their a Class C felony!


By bupkus on 10/6/2011 8:44:58 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe, but should we put that to the test?


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/11, Rating: 0
RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By MrBlastman on 10/5/2011 5:40:57 PM , Rating: 3
Neither. We should take our country back by force.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By Reclaimer77 on 10/5/2011 6:22:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Neither. We should take our country back by force.


Whoa there watch it now buddy. Talk like that and you end up on Obama's "Right Wing domestic terrorists" list!


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By lexluthermiester on 10/6/2011 5:45:30 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with him on that one. We keep inching closer to another civil war one step at a time. And guess which side I'll be on? Obama has turned out to be nothing more than a closet Nazi. Let us both be on his "Domestic Terrorist" list. I welcome it. Political correctness is a pathetic point of view....


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By bupkus on 10/6/2011 8:53:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Let us both be on his "Domestic Terrorist" list. I welcome it.
I will guess that you've never done time.
Don't be so eager to martyr yourself. Just get politically active and don't talk in hyperbole.
Level headed debate that at least sounds reasonable will take you much further... or maybe not. Rush is a millionaire by tapping into personal rage and resentment.


By lexluthermiester on 10/8/2011 11:20:51 PM , Rating: 2
You make many assumptions. But one in particular is very funny indeed. The Rush Limpdi.. er, Limbaugh comment. Very true.

Level headed discussion is most appropriate for situations where forum of debate is being attended by people concerned of the ideals and principals of true liberty. But that seems to be not the situation. When the next civil war comes to this country, I sincerely hope I am still young and able bodied enough to fight in it.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By mephit13 on 10/6/2011 10:29:59 AM , Rating: 1
Closet Nazi? No, you don't sound crazy at all. Just a thought though, maybe you should read about the Nazis, as I'm convinced you really have no idea what they were all about.

Also, and this is for everyone, these are State Senators! This has nothing to do with Washington DC! State Senators do some really dumb things from time to time, and while their hearts may be in the right place, this is just a dumb idea that ultimately won't solve the problem it's meant to. Nothing will come of it, but go ahead and flip out over it, I enjoy the entertainment.


By lexluthermiester on 10/8/2011 11:47:07 PM , Rating: 2
Your response is one of complete cluelessness. How can any reasonable mind look at the actions of Obama and conclude less. Do you have any real grasp of what Naziism was all about? Perhaps I am a little crazy. But a dolt I am not. I am familiar with the events of pre-WW2 Germany and many of the actions taken by Hitler then were being mirrored by former President Bush and now Obama. These are known facts that are easily comparable. Do your homework. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were the last real and honorable presidents we had. And yes I realize the I must include Bill with tongue in cheek. His wiff-worm issues aside, he time and again sided with the rights of the citizen on nearly every matter that came before him.

And as for your assumption that this is limited to NY. How long do you think it will be before efforts like this spread? Febbleminded nonsense like this ALWAYS spreads. Their hearts are not in the right place. They are borderline traitors who are working to gain more control over a populace that is feared out of control.

And I'm not flipping out. I'm chiming in and making noise. And if you had a clue, you'd have realized such. Poor you...


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By Invane on 10/5/2011 8:20:44 PM , Rating: 2
At this point, I think this is the only likely way this country will dig itself out of the cesspit of corruption and greed that has become Washington DC.

Unfortunately, I also think it's unlikely it will happen. Those in power understand there are many more people swayed by propaganda than those smart enough to think critically for themselves. And they know only too well how to manipulate that majority.


By YashBudini on 10/5/2011 8:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Those in power understand there are many more people swayed by propaganda than those smart enough to think critically for themselves.

You're equating market researchers with illegal drug creators. And yes, that would be a valid comparison.

It's too late, they understand what get's people going regardless of (the lack of) synaptic activity. Pandora's box is now open, you can't close it.

quote:
And they know only too well how to manipulate that majority.


quote:
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/russell...


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By bupkus on 10/6/2011 9:12:32 AM , Rating: 2
Just last night I listened to a commencement speech Steve Jobs gave to the graduating class at Stanford University back in 2005. I mention this here because he mentioned something that will stay with me and which may be helpful.
He said to follow your passion.

If you are passionate about your freedoms then you should be passionately vocal. Yes, it is easy to be misled by statements not really made by those who spin the truth for personal gain, but don't lose your passion for those things you love. I believe this approach can clear away some of the fog.


By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 9:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
He said to follow your passion.

And if your passion is to just light up another joint this advice will certainly take you places.

I wonder if his passion was to cause suicides when he contracted the lowest bid.

Some people still believe Nike is a sneaker company. It's just a marketing company that happens to deal with sneakers and some other stuff. See the parallel?


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By Omega215D on 10/5/2011 11:49:27 PM , Rating: 3
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By lexluthermiester on 10/6/2011 5:47:11 AM , Rating: 2
Well quoted...


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 9:43:26 PM , Rating: 2
Most people don't have the balls to stop voting the 2 party bandwagon.


RE: I hope this is April fools in october
By MrBlastman on 10/7/2011 1:09:36 PM , Rating: 2
I've been doing it for a while and it feels great. More should try it. Maybe we should start passing out balls to everyone else.


By YashBudini on 10/7/2011 1:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
Good for you.


By gorehound on 10/6/2011 8:50:20 AM , Rating: 3
KIss My Dog's Butt !!!
1ST AMMENDMENT is not meant to be changed and watered down.


No one should really be surprised at this
By klstay on 10/5/2011 4:53:50 PM , Rating: 5
The framers of the constitution and bill of rights created those documents not to grant those inalienable rights to man, but rather to recognize those rights as given to man by God. In a society where there is no God the source of all rights and/or privileges is up for debate.

These politicians would do well to remember there are those who are ready, willing, and able to use any means necessary to defend the lives and liberties of themselves, their families, and those in their community.




RE: No one should really be surprised at this
By vortmax2 on 10/5/2011 5:04:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The framers of the constitution and bill of rights created those documents not to grant those inalienable rights to man, but rather to recognize those rights as given to man by God. In a society where there is no God the source of all rights and/or privileges is up for debate.


Someone just hit the nail on the head...


By Piiman on 10/6/2011 4:27:17 PM , Rating: 2
But there is no God so hmmmmmmmmmmmmm


RE: No one should really be surprised at this
By adiposity on 10/5/2011 5:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In a society where there is no God the source of all rights and/or privileges is up for debate.


Yes. But the rights and/or privileges are equally up for debate whether or not there is a God. Who will decide what rights God grants?

God is recognized in Saudi Arabia, but they don't have the same rights we do.


RE: No one should really be surprised at this
By Ringold on 10/5/2011 6:49:24 PM , Rating: 3
But that was the framers point, to try to end all debate -- I think the focus on the god part is over-stated. They're inalienable human rights, period. At least, they're supposed to be. For Americans.

I think George Washington would've suggested Saudi Arabia's business is their own, and none of our own.

That modern society tries to unravel these rights, and that somewhat educated people are even considering them, is peeling back the social advancement that millions have died for over the past 235 years, and its really sad. It kinda suggests that, like it or not, perhaps Chinese-style autocracy/technocratic government is the mean to which human history reverts? Was the USA a historical outlier that left a strong wake in its path (the democratic West), but the wakes fading?


RE: No one should really be surprised at this
By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/2011 8:43:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But that was the framers point, to try to end all debate -- I think the focus on the god part is over-stated. They're inalienable human rights, period. At least, they're supposed to be. For Americans.


Exactly. I'm reading this pseudo-religious debate and I'm totally in awe. Wtf guys? A lot of the Framers believed in God I'm sure, but that's besides the point. They believed that our rights were, as Ringold is saying, INALIENABLE. That we had certain innate rights as human beings and the Constitution would protect those rights, NOT grant them.

quote:
That modern society tries to unravel these rights, and that somewhat educated people are even considering them, is peeling back the social advancement that millions have died for over the past 235 years, and its really sad.


Succinct and eloquent. We're losing everything that got us to where we were, that shining city on the hill that stood for freedom and liberty.

quote:
Was the USA a historical outlier that left a strong wake in its path (the democratic West), but the wakes fading?


Freedom and rights are, sadly, not the natural order of things in the history of mankind. We take for granted how unique the United States is and how amazing it's creation truly was.


By gixser on 10/7/2011 3:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
I think you'll find the struggle for like rights has been going on for a lot longer than 235 years and the fight has its origins pre-US. Even the codification of many of the precepts/concepts pre-date the US Constitution. Not trying to take anything away from the US Consitution but it doesn't all start with the US.

quote:
Was the USA a historical outlier that left a strong wake in its path (the democratic West), but the wakes fading?


quote:
That modern society tries to unravel these rights, and that somewhat educated people are even considering them, is peeling back the social advancement that millions have died for over the past 235 years


RE: No one should really be surprised at this
By wyrmslair on 10/5/2011 5:28:32 PM , Rating: 3
Second part, right on. First part, logical fallacy. Society functions as a set of agreed upon rules, whether they are perceived as granted by a deity or simply chartered by it's members. We, as Americans, per force hold the constitution and the BoR as the central tenants upon which we base our society. By your logic, atheists would have no rights which leads to an untenable and un-American society. Simply put, the biggest part of their stupidity is thinking that we, the people, would tolerate this kind of BS but that has nothing to do with "God" in any form. Then again, in accordance with your second statement, if we do, we deserve it.

BTW, everything's up for debate if we allow elected officials to run amok without taking part in the process before the point of revolt. "Citizen" means one who has the rights of the society but also means one who bears the responsibilities of those rights as well. We would do well as a society to do more earlier rather than waiting for the ugly possibilities around the corner.


RE: No one should really be surprised at this
By ekv on 10/5/2011 8:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By your logic, atheists would have no rights which leads to an untenable and un-American society.
Not necessarily. What you're saying is, CMIIW, seeing that atheists don't believe in God then a non-existent God cannot create rights. No God means no rights. You can't just have rights come from nothing, spontaneous creation theorists notwithstanding.

However, the BoR states that we are endowed with certain inalienable rights from our Creator. That is what the document says. Whether you believe the document exists, or whether you believe the words in the document, or whether you believe the word "the" exists [to be facetitious] ... are entirely other matters.

For example, I believe in the God of the Bible. If you do not believe then that doesn't necessarily make Him not exist. That is simply a logical statement.

Let me add, if reality is as I believe then you still have Rights (and those Rights are not dependent on my whim or fancy). If, however, by your logic that rights are derived from society and/or government, then those rights can be abrogated. For example, if, as an atheist Liberal, I didn't believe in God then it is easier, despite unqualified pangs of guilt, to do away with Rights that interfere with my particular agenda. I think this, for the most part, is the point that klstay was driving at.


RE: No one should really be surprised at this
By jeff834 on 10/6/2011 1:00:51 PM , Rating: 2
You frighten me. You need so-called god to tell you one deserves certain rights? 700 years of English monarchy said they had the "divine right" to do whatever they wanted. Which of you is right? Our rights come from finally being able to see the truth that the "little people" is where the power really comes from. Without believers, god has no power just like without citizens a government has no power. Many of the most religious countries in this world have the fewest rights for their people. When you believe your government was given some divine right to rule you will do what you are told (along with fear for yourself and your family if you do not).


RE: No one should really be surprised at this
By ekv on 10/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: No one should really be surprised at this
By jeff834 on 10/7/2011 6:04:53 AM , Rating: 2
My grammar is bad because I said god instead of God? Or is it the parantheses? I don't capitalize the word god for the same reason I don't capitalize the words unicorn or dragon. When I refer to a particular god like Zeus or Vishnu I will use a capital letter. I've never admitted to having impeccable grammar, I studied electrical engineering in college not English.

Anyway, in between your personal attacks about my maturity (which in themselves were ironically immature), you made some nonsensical ramblings connecting religion with people's rights. I respectfully (unlike yourself) disagree. To me there is no "if there is a god", there simply isn't one or any number of them. I don't choose not to believe in a god for the same reason I don't choose not to believe in magic or fairy tales. However, despite my completely heathen views and total lack of any religion, I am a firm believer in the quote "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". You say if one does not believe in a god that doesn't mean their rights didn't come from said god. I say if there was no religion in the world we would still come to the conclusion as a civilized society that there are certain rights everyone should enjoy.

I'm not entirely sure what my father has to do with anything, but he and my step mother are both retired and living quite comfortably, thank you.


By ekv on 10/8/2011 3:12:31 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My grammar is bad because I said god instead of God?
Not at all. I said your grammar is bad because it is. It reads at a U.S. Junior High School level (which admittedly was a slight on your character). Is English your second language? If so, I apologize. I studied Math in college. Being from an engineering discipline is no excuse. Regarding your father, again, my apologies for mistaking your age (based on your English).
quote:
To me there is no "if there is a god", there simply isn't one or any number of them.
If you're from an engineering background, I'm sure you can appreciate my desire for empirical evidence. Prove there is no God. Or am I supposed to merely take YOUR word for it? Even better, regarding the National US Debt, "there simply isn't one". I could even change my name to Obama (capitalized) to help convince everybody....
quote:
I don't choose not to believe in a god for the same reason I don't choose not to believe in magic or fairy tales.
What?? I think I know what you're trying to say, but it really doesn't help your argument, though rather supports my assertions regarding grammar.
quote:
I say if there was no religion in the world we would still come to the conclusion as a civilized society that there are certain rights everyone should enjoy.
In the first place, are you trying to dispute "that there are certain rights everyone should enjoy"? If so, please go to Iraq and hike into Iran. They need to hear your message. If not, then I suspect you do not understand what was written. Please re-read it, though I'll try to elaborate further.

If I did not believe in God, then it would be easier for me to take away your rights, given that I had certain incentives. You could point out your difficulties with my actions, but would have no objective basis from which to argue, rather, you'd have a subjective basis. If however, I did take away your rights, due to those incentives, I would be a hypocrite -- since God is Just -- and you could point to an objective moral standard (the Bible) to prove it. I could still deny it, i.e. the proof ... but that would get ugly.

Secondly, I assert that water does not flow up-hill, unless there is some external force to the contrary. By this allusion I imply that a society w/o the God of the Bible would not be very civilized. Examples: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and all the other Cults of Personality. Mao bragged about having terminated Christianity and the Bible. Today, China has a vibrant Christian Church AND Mao is terminated.

Thank you for your reply.


By NellyFromMA on 10/6/2011 8:40:10 AM , Rating: 2
Individuals haven't respected their 'rights' for a long time. The truth is, as soon as this starts happening, you no longer have many 'rights'. Nothing is garunteed to you, other than the fact freedom isn't free, and you need to continuously fight (one way or the other) to maintain a living, whatever that might be. When societies become lazy and feel entitled and are then challenged, they either can accept it or do something about it. Writing on the internet isn't exactly one of those things. I see a lot of tough talk about civil war and some interesting quotes. I'm not going to say I agree or disagree, but talk is cheap.

Educate the people.

Just my two cents.


RE: No one should really be surprised at this
By Zavijava on 10/5/2011 7:23:21 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense. You will not find a reference to god/gods anywhere in the constitution. Rather you only find find the first amendment, which says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". They were decidedly against rooting the establishment of government in anything other than the consent of the governed , i.e. "we the people".

Their thinking is based in the natural law theory of the Enlightenment which held these rights to self evident and inalienable. This school of thought emphasizes human reasoning, not the grant of divinity. If you establish an authority as responsible for "giving" you these things, then you risk having them "taken".

I, too, treasure my liberty. I do not wish to see it lost to those seeking to enslave mankind on any grounds, including religious. Your assertion that there are those "willing to use any means necessary" underscores pretty well what the founders understood, there is no stable government without the consent of the governed. One doesn't need god to want to live free.


RE: No one should really be surprised at this
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2011 8:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
Apparently you have never read the Declaration of Independence though. Which was written by many of the same people who drafted the Constitution. The idea that the framers did not believe that all rights came from God is absurd. Merely reading many of the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist Papers shows that as well.

No one is saying you need a God to want to live free. But don't try to lie about the men who created this nation and their beliefs.


RE: No one should really be surprised at this
By Zavijava on 10/6/2011 11:36:41 AM , Rating: 2
Which God did they believe in? Yours or mine?

I don't know what agenda you have, but I think you will acknowledge that the framers were men able to fully express themselves. If there intention was to acknowledge god so fully, then why did they not simply express this in the constitution? It is telling to me that they did not. As I alluded to, there is a long intellectual tradition of the West that is not religious. You seem to want to ignore this and read between the lines. The absence of any reference to divine authority within the constitution should give you pause.

Having a belief in God and claiming it as the basis for civil government are two different things. Valuing (protecting) the former, does not require the latter. I wish those with religious feelings would appreciate this. We declared independence from those who claimed their their authority to govern came from God, i.e. "divine right" tradition. Stop trying to reverse their wisdom.


RE: No one should really be surprised at this
By FITCamaro on 10/7/2011 12:47:58 AM , Rating: 2
How am I reading between the lines? I am reading the words.

quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[75] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


Right there. They state their belief of where the rights of people come from. Not from governments. But from God.

I have stated many times I am not the most religious person in the world. I don't go to church. I don't even believe 100% in the divinity of Jesus. But I do believe in God. And to say that the men who helped found our nation didn't is absurd. After our country was founded, public schools taught religion. Hell reading was taught from religious texts. Church services were held in the Capitol. This is not subject to debate, it is known fact.

They didn't acknowledge God because they weren't trying to establish a theocracy. They were trying to establish a democratic republic. But one founded on the principles that all men had rights and those rights came from God, not the government. The governments job was merely to protect those rights from being taken away as in many other government systems of the time.

And again, there is plenty of writings by the framers in the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers about their beliefs in God and the fact that they weren't trying to 100% separate government and religion. They certainly weren't trying to make a society devoid of God that liberals seem so intent on. Mainly because if rights come from God, then they cannot be taken away so they have done their best to convince everyone that rights come from the government.


By FITCamaro on 10/7/2011 12:58:12 AM , Rating: 2
I'll also say that while the federal government did not have any religious preference, many state governments did. For an extremely long time. And it was viewed as the right of the state.

I'm not saying you should have to be a particular religion to be in a state government. But the men who founded this nation did not have a problem with it.


By Zavijava on 10/7/2011 12:58:05 PM , Rating: 2
Your reference is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. As I noted above, you find nothing of the sort in the constitution. I am not saying many founders were not religious, I am saying there are other motivations to natural rights philosophy that you choose to simply ignore, only to assert the belief in God as preeminent. I'm not denying the importance of the declaration, but its not what government officials swear to defend. You take one word from a document other that the one that is the basis for our government and generalize the diverse beliefs of many men in drafting another document that contains nothing of the sort, to the exclusion of everything else .

Moreover, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Do you know what he thinks about God and the priestly type. Is it the same thing as all god-believing people? Here's a quote:

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."

His conception of god was not simple and certainly not generalizable over his peers of the time.

For a fuller picture try this:
http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm

I am in full support of any ones free exercise of their religious beliefs. I don't agree with this effort to generalize as if they were all were somehow in agreement any more than the people of today are. I see no reason, based on the writing in the constitution, to emphasize the role of god over the much richer history that informs our government. When looking at the question of god in the broader context, it seems pretty clear that the framers concluded it is 1) a free to be protected and 2) has no role in the government designed to protect that very freedom.

Nonetheless, those with religious feelings continuously try to insinuate something more.

The aim of these documents was not to establish were are freedoms come from, but to protect them. To continue your excerpt from the declaration. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Whatever you think of god(s), Nature, whatever, it's not the basis for civil government.


By faster on 10/8/2011 1:09:32 PM , Rating: 1
I better use this opportunity to tell those senators I think they are fucking douchebags for trying to trample on my constitional rights before they make it illegal for me to do so.

Look to the Wall Street Marchers. This country needs a revolution before it is too late. The New Political Party - The Revolution Party. If we can sweep the elections, we can change the system from the inside. POLITICAL REVOLUTION NOW!


Voila!
By bug77 on 10/5/2011 4:16:45 PM , Rating: 5
Is it clear now why the right to bear arms is also in the constitution?




RE: Voila!
By daveinternets on 10/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Voila!
By ClownPuncher on 10/5/2011 5:05:11 PM , Rating: 3
Where will they get tax money from?


RE: Voila!
By Ushio01 on 10/5/2011 5:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
Smart bomb? your no fun, I want a huge crowb of armed protestors walking down a main street when a A10 decides to let rip with that lovely 7 barreled gatling gun and makes the worlds largest supply of mince.

Now that would be worth watching on youtube.


RE: Voila!
By bupkus on 10/6/2011 9:18:01 AM , Rating: 3
Tartare fan are we?

Try a vegetarian smoothie.


RE: Voila!
By Stuka on 10/5/2011 5:10:08 PM , Rating: 5
First of all... bend over 'cos uncle sam has a tank is a pathetic attitude. You would probably work in a death camp too, 'cos bills gotta get paid, right?

Second... the right to bear arms applies in that it is part of a whole way of life in which each person is responsible for their own worth, strength, and future. I am a living example of fighting back. I was picked on repeatedly in school by a few bullies. After scrapping with them a few times, we were able to sit on the bleachers at a football game and discuss how the game is going. You are in control of your destiny, not anyone else, not the jerk on the internet, not the congressmen in DC. People need to be reminded of this.


RE: Voila!
By bupkus on 10/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: Voila!
By kjboughton on 10/5/2011 5:29:15 PM , Rating: 3
Those playing in the sandbox would probably argue your point. A bunch of guys with "assult" rifles and home-made explosives seem to be holding their own quite nicely against our tanks and smart bombs.


RE: Voila!
By kfonda on 10/5/2011 5:30:10 PM , Rating: 3
What makes you think the military would side with the government?


RE: Voila!
By Ringold on 10/5/2011 6:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. It's a Republican-leaning institution with a good number of people in its ranks that idealize the constitution, not the nations fleeting presidency.

Also, if military might were such a clear winner, then why dont some trolls explain this years string of toppled autocracies, and why they're still able to fight on in Syria. We also seem to have had an awfully hard time taking down insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan armed often with nothing more then decades-old assault rifles. Guess that guy didn't hear about the TWENTY HOUR battle in Kabul a couple weeks back.

Only Libya was a muddy example, due to external support.

Worst comes to worst, we can always buy RPGs and whatnot from the Mexican drug cartels too! :P


RE: Voila!
By YashBudini on 10/5/2011 8:47:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The government can kill you in the blink of an eye.

And you don't even need any physical weapons, there are plenty of labels to place on people that will cause total character assassination. Leaving such victims with a pulse is only icing on the cake.


RE: Voila!
By NellyFromMA on 10/6/2011 8:35:30 AM , Rating: 2
lol, the evil goverment is going to start targeting neighborhoods with smart bombs? hahaha


RE: Voila!
By dark matter on 10/6/2011 8:52:31 AM , Rating: 2
Dave, yellowbelly Internets

Are you trying to instil fear into us.

Who is this "government" you speak of, all I see are men, like I, like you.

The suggestion that I should fear them fluttering their eyelashes at me is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard on the Internet. Sincerely.

You're a company man through and through, the kind of chap whose lame excuse would always be "I was just following orders"


RE: Voila!
By ppardee on 10/6/2011 2:23:09 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, because the U.S. military is doing such a bang-up job in the Middle East. Modern weaponry is designed to fight against an organized armed force. It isn't much use against a single fighter or a group of single fighters and only slightly more effective against a small group.

What makes the right to bear arms so important is that no one knows where all the weapons are and no one knows who the enemy is. This is why we lost Vietnam, why the USSR lost in Afghanistan, why Ghadaffy and Mubarak were overthrown and why the UK could be taken in a fortnight.

The right to bear arms is essential in protecting all other rights.


RE: Voila!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/2011 3:59:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yeah, because the U.S. military is doing such a bang-up job in the Middle East. Modern weaponry is designed to fight against an organized armed force. It isn't much use against a single fighter or a group of single fighters and only slightly more effective against a small group.


In terms of death toll and kill to death ratios, the military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been maybe the most successful military campaigns in the history of the world. We don't keep official records of kill/death anymore since the Vietnam war, but most estimates show around a 100 to 1 k/d for Coalition forces. That's just staggering! What the hell are you talking about man? Short of using "special" weapons or just outright carpet bombing enemy positions (which are placed in civilian housing centers) we couldn't possibly ask for better results than our boys and girls have been doing over there.


RE: Voila!
By Fost04mach on 10/6/2011 7:16:02 PM , Rating: 2
As a person who has lived through a revolution (romania 1989), yes, the army was ordered to start shooting protesters (or dissidents as you all know 'em), but it didn't last long. The armed forces shortly realized they're shooting their own people, and within a day or two sided with the population and turned on Ceausescu. And that was with a population that had no fire arms. I imagine out here it would be a much bloodier but end much quicker, with the same result - the armed forces would side with the population.

And I don't see many in this country, regardless how far left they are, supporting a government that orders the armed forces to kill its own people.

After living thru that revolution, I for one am much happier having the 2nd amendment... Rocks and sticks don't get you very far against the armed forces loyal to a tyrant.


RE: Voila!
By Ushio01 on 10/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Voila!
By Invane on 10/5/2011 8:22:06 PM , Rating: 2
Would rate you up if I could. This is exactly why that right is slowly being eroded away as well.


RE: Voila!
By EricMartello on 10/6/2011 2:16:43 AM , Rating: 1
Exactly...and the US military is largely comprised of high-school and college-aged kids. If they decided to accept orders to fight for the government in a civil war, they'd be turning their weapons on their own friends and families. The WMDs the US possesses would largely be unusable in a civil war unless they choose a kamikaze tactic.

My theory is that if a civil war did break out in the US again, where US citizens vs the US government, we'd have a good portion of the military supporting us AND it would be a battle of attrition, much like what's going on in the middle east...but unlike the middle east, the government is really not going to be able to tell whose friend or foe...which woul work in the favor of US citizens.

Also, a few tactically placed EMP charges to wipe out the military's electronics systems will drastically level the playing field.


RE: Voila!
By bupkus on 10/6/2011 9:38:42 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also, a few tactically placed EMP charges to wipe out the military's electronics systems will drastically level the playing field.
Available, of course, only at k-mart.


With great freedom comes great responsibility
By YashBudini on 10/5/2011 4:34:53 PM , Rating: 1
Yes we have free speech, but long before the Internet we clearly were not allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater. So in some situations people's safety outweighs a person's ability to exploit or abuse a right, such as this one. Notice how the right can be used even in a crowded theater when it's used in the spirit of the law. You can always voice discontent with your government and representative.

Call me crazy, our forefathers did not envision the high school football team and all the cheerleaders Photoshopping the class geek's head onto a donkey and getting it from behind from another one, and then creating a web site of this and forwarding the link to the entire school population.

While adults can possibly ignore such tactics teenagers who strive for acceptance (and it seems some here have forgotten this)do not react in the most sensible or logical manner, and no legislation or belief is going to change that. So if you're a sophomore with 2 or 3 more years of the same crap pending it can be too much to deal with.

Don't forget not all those targeted will commit suicide. Recall Columbine? The most dangerous people out there are the ones with nothing left to lose. They have the greatest freedom of all, and terrorists drive that point home everyday. Ergo speech that can create or lead to violence should at least evoke some discussion, certainly not another half baked law.

Somehow I feel the article is written with more emphasis on inciting than real discussion. Pity.




RE: With great freedom comes great responsibility
By vortmax2 on 10/5/2011 5:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Call me crazy, our forefathers did not envision the high school football team and all the cheerleaders Photoshopping the class geek's head onto a donkey and getting it from behind from another one, and then creating a web site of this and forwarding the link to the entire school population.


This is an interesting point when you really think about it. Not only did they not envision this from a technology standpoint, they probably didn't envision it from a maturity standpoint either (which I think is the bigger deal/problem). It's truly unfortunate how our country has changed for the worse in some ways...


By YashBudini on 10/5/2011 7:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is an interesting point when you really think about it.

Apparently it's easier to just downrate what you don't like to hear.


RE: With great freedom comes great responsibility
By wyrmslair on 10/5/2011 5:17:45 PM , Rating: 3
Yes and no. I'll grant that they didn't likely foresee the internet and the ways it would affect our society. On the other hand, there's no substantive difference between your jock/cheer/pshop example and someone drawing a similar gag on a piece of paper then posting it on poles in a 1700's town. The net effect is the same and that is exactly what used to happen. We don't need new rules for the web, we just need to effectively utilize/enforce the existing ones. Verbal attack = slander/slander, an actionable event in our legal system. For any example, there's a real world parallel that will be appropriate. Just like getting wedgies before the "interwebs", cyberbullying just requires that parents and school functionaries do their jobs (with the most important actually being the former, not the latter). Why the parents aren't doing them is another problem completely with a link to the destruction of middle class and any kind of family unit...


By YashBudini on 10/5/2011 8:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there's no substantive difference between your jock/cheer/pshop example and someone drawing a similar gag on a piece of paper then posting it on poles in a 1700's town.

Actually something has changed. Back then if you were caught doing this and were considered an arse you'd be embarrassed. Today being an arse is a badge of honor, that's why it's so widespread.

quote:
We don't need new rules for the web, we just need to effectively utilize/enforce the existing ones.

Really? I don't think your have a firm grasp of jurisdictional issues with that statement.

quote:
Verbal attack = slander/slander, an actionable event in our legal system.

Your want an increase in tort law filings? That's your "solution?"

quote:
cyberbullying just requires that parents and school functionaries do their jobs

And functional government requires politicians to do their jobs, yeah like that's going to start happening.


RE: With great freedom comes great responsibility
By wyrmslair on 10/6/2011 1:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually something has changed. Back then if you were caught doing this and were considered an arse you'd be embarrassed. Today being an arse is a badge of honor, that's why it's so widespread.


I absolutely agree but, most importantly, is this an issue for the government or for the strictures of society? I'd be all for social ostracism of that kind of pig (in either example) but should the government be acting in an official sense according to our tenants?

quote:
Really? I don't think your have a firm grasp of jurisdictional issues with that statement.


That may be true but it would seem that we have a fairly well established set of guidelines for the print media and other types of general publicity (which I'm well aware of after over a decade in marketing). By simply extending those to the web and adjusting for technology as logical and necessary, we should be able to settle this without the kind of silliness that these people are looking to institute.

quote:
Your want an increase in tort law filings? That's your "solution?"


Nope, I want an increase in society requiring us to act like adults and to teach our kids to as well. But tort law is there for a reason - sometimes it needs to be used. Do I think kids who post stupid and embarrassing photos online should be sued? Nope. But I don't think they should be sued if they put pictures in the school hallways either, so I once again think we simply need to institute the existing system into cyberspace.

quote:
And functional government requires politicians to do their jobs, yeah like that's going to start happening.


If I could agree with you more on that, I would! So damn true! Personally, these idiots on the far side of both ideologies need to be smacked up side the head and chased out of government. Really, I think our government and much of our society have become bipolar - there's no middle ground anymore and when there is, nobody has any respect for it or those who claim it!


By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 2:31:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there's no middle ground anymore and when there is, nobody has any respect for it or those who claim it!

Well this place is the perfect example of that. To be middle ground here means you lack a cause, you can be compromised, you are weak. When you're stubborn, one sided, pigheaded, and refuse all reason from the opposing argument you're a winner. Generalizations rule, reasoning is for sissies. I can post a half dozen examples from the responses to this article alone.

This is actually all part of the freedom from social ostracism, to do whatever a$$hole tendency that enters your mind with no repercussions, only pride. It's a child with no self control, zero discipline. Much like the guy with nothing to lose, no shame or punishment is possible. Freedom = free-for-all, freedom from "great responsibility." More like from any responsibility.

quote:
By simply extending those to the web and adjusting for technology as logical and necessary, we should be able to settle this without the kind of silliness that these people are looking to institute.

Well Ron Paul has similar arguments for banks and other cheats. Sue them all for fraud, whether it's misrepresented earnings or selling fraudulent safe mortgages. So the kids who are pushed into suicide are often being slandered, cyber stalked, coerced, mentally abused not much different than some abusive marriages. Acting as a group brings up conspiracy issues.

Tort law has its own problems. You're usually only rewarded money, lawyers get a huge cut, and that's if you win and the loser has any money to begin with. When the bully's family wins they become more empowered, oh yay for that situation. Society is stuck with court costs.

quote:
is this an issue for the government or for the strictures of society?

What are the options of the parents of the abused kid or the kid who committed suicide? Physical fights you call the police and they enforce, uhh, laws.

quote:
Do I think kids who post stupid and embarrassing photos online should be sued? Nope.

I think we're talking about situations which result in additional financial burdens to society as a result of the actions; physical harm, any harm that leads to medical treatment, additional burdens on police, etc.


By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 6:29:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well as you can see from many of the latest posts the over simplified myopic entity continues to be self sustaining. And it's rather proud of itself as well.


RE: With great freedom comes great responsibility
By 91TTZ on 10/6/2011 10:02:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Call me crazy, our forefathers did not envision the high school football team and all the cheerleaders Photoshopping the class geek's head onto a donkey and getting it from behind from another one, and then creating a web site of this and forwarding the link to the entire school population.


It wouldn't be a stretch. They had political cartoons back then, and it wasn't uncommon to see a cartoon with a certain businessman/politician's head drawn onto a donkey and printed in the newspaper for everyone to see.


By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 9:14:20 PM , Rating: 2
That was purely political speech, not aimed at children. It still exists today. It's not the issue at hand.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/7/2011 8:55:48 AM , Rating: 2
Using the Government to "fix" social issues is like using a hammer to kill that mosquito on your nose.


By YashBudini on 10/7/2011 10:03:03 AM , Rating: 2
Recall what I said about this law? Doubtful.

But your summation is no surprise, everything black or white, one extreme or the other.


By shin0bi272 on 10/6/2011 5:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Call me crazy, our forefathers did not envision the high school football team and all the cheerleaders Photoshopping the class geek's head onto a donkey and getting it from behind from another one, and then creating a web site of this and forwarding the link to the entire school population.


You're crazy. Our forefathers had their kids out in the fields for 12 hours a day and slaughtered cattle in front of them. Now which is more traumatizing?

Also what to teenagers become? Oh yeah adults... and that geek will most likely run the business that the now overweight chain smoking diabetic former cheerleader and the even more overweight with bad knees and a chip on his shoulder cause he blew out his knee in highschool so he couldnt go pro football jock have to work at and that geek will never give them a raise and give them the worst jobs in the company.

If things are so bad that kids are killing themselves or each other then a) why arent the teachers picking up on this ... oh yeah they're in a union they dont have to care... I keep forgetting. And b) maybe our country has gone soft like the president or vice president said. If young people cant learn to deal with things thats a problem and it wont be fixed till we stop trying to fix it by throwing money at the schools (that just buys teachers luxury cars) and get rid of the lackadaisical attitude that the faculty have about their jobs by getting rid of unions. when you cant get fired from your job and you know it how hard are you going to work? not too damned hard right? is that the type of person you want teaching your kids? prolly not huh? I also think we should let the teachers start carrying guns to school ... its a better solution than strip searching everyone as they enter school...*ahem* TSA anyone?

The fact of the matter is you equate freedom of speech with things that are clearly slander and direct threats... both of the latter are crimes. Free speech must be upheld for if free speech can be taken away from you on the play ground it can be taken away from you on the streets and it can be taken away from you in your home and that's not any country I want a part of. Why does that sentence remind me of demolition man? bah you get the point... your analogy falls flat because you failed to recognize that communicating threats, physically attacking someone, and slander/defamation are all crimes already. Please grow a spine and stop siding with the fascists who want to take your speech away.


By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 6:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're crazy. Our forefathers had their kids out in the fields for 12 hours a day and slaughtered cattle in front of them. Now which is more traumatizing?

You're comparing an act for subsistence with a useless and cruel act? Could you be anymore non-sequitur?

quote:
Also what to teenagers become? Oh yeah adults

Pointless if the act occurs before adulthood.

quote:
If things are so bad that kids are killing themselves or each other then a) why arent the teachers picking up on this

Well if you actually did some research you could answer this yourself, but why are you sure they haven't? Because the TV didn't address it? Or were the teachers also threatened?

The rest of your post is OT meandering dealing with over simplified absolutes. Why waste more time on this additional futility?

Tell you what, if you feel you can say anything anywhere I suggest the next time you're at an airport you jokingly say you have a bomb in your suitcase. Then scream about your first amendment rights as they take you away in shackles.

I repeat; you can't fix stupid.


Well good to know
By FITCamaro on 10/5/2011 8:37:30 PM , Rating: 1
That while freedom of speech is a privilege (despite being a right fundamentally spelled out in the Bill of Rights), healthcare is a right.

Fucking liberals.




RE: Well good to know
By gamerk2 on 10/6/2011 8:25:57 AM , Rating: 2
Funny, case law is clear: Some forms of speach that are hurtful to others [IE: Yelling "Fire" in a theatre] are already restricted.


RE: Well good to know
By FITCamaro on 10/6/2011 9:23:41 AM , Rating: 1
While I do not believe bullying warrants the attention it has(it is nothing new), if people want to try and argue that it is a crime fine. But to suggest that freedom of speech is a privilege while something like healthcare is a right is not.

No one argues that yelling fire in a theater shouldn't be punishable because said "speech" can injure others from the potential panic. Bullying though is something that, while hurtful, people need to learn to deal with. Some people are assholes. Kids especially. Good parenting and attentive teachers keep it in check. I was bullied as a kid. I didn't kill myself or anyone else because of it. And I was called every name in the book as well as had rocks thrown at me at one point. I turned out to be a contributing member of society just fine. I hold others to no less of a standard. Suck it up and deal.


RE: Well good to know
By dark matter on 10/6/2011 11:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
Given your aggression levels I would say you have not yet come to terms with the bullying you received at school.


RE: Well good to know
By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 12:27:56 PM , Rating: 2
Arrogance + ignorance = superiority. That's their game book. Use the former to overcome the latter, then place the big L on the forehead.


RE: Well good to know
By FITCamaro on 10/7/2011 12:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
Do not mistake passion for anger. Very few people have seen me angry.


RE: Well good to know
By dark matter on 10/6/2011 11:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
Given your aggression levels I would say you have not yet come to terms with the bullying you received at school.


RE: Well good to know
By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 12:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Good parenting and attentive teachers keep it in check.

Straw man nonsense, like politicians should be honest too.

quote:
I was bullied as a kid. I didn't kill myself or anyone else because of it.

I doubt anywhere near the current extent. You didn't have an entire school call you the class slut. There's a huge difference to have a group be against you when you have people in your corner, it's another when there's nobody in your corner, and the latter only has to be perceived, not real, for the same results.

quote:
Suck it up and deal.

Oh the master of child psychology voices his expertise. Tell us, was there ever a time you didn't oversimplify a situation? It's same technique the arses in DC use all the time, the same technique that caused the inception of the law you are against. Glossing over important facts, like children can't respond like adults, but can commit suicide, leads to a Faux resolution.


RE: Well good to know
By FITCamaro on 10/7/2011 12:55:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You didn't have an entire school call you the class slut. There's a huge difference to have a group be against you when you have people in your corner, it's another when there's nobody in your corner, and the latter only has to be perceived, not real, for the same results.


When I was 5 I moved to St. Augustine, FL. For 3 years I sat alone every day at the lunch table. No one talked to me. Don't tell me I don't know what its like to have everyone against me and no one in my corner. Kids are cruel. Even more so when you're the new kid who's an outsider and wore big, thick glasses at 5 years old as well as being overweight. And no I am not exaggerating at all. The worst part was my parents didn't believe what I said told me what I say to others. Deal with it. I made it through. So can others.

No kids didn't have facebook and twitter back then. But you know what? It's pretty damn easy not to have a facebook or twitter account if people are being mean on it to you. It isn't easy to ignore what they say and do to your face.


RE: Well good to know
By YashBudini on 10/7/2011 10:16:51 AM , Rating: 2
Addressing only Facebook and Twitter is another oversimplification. Nasty websites can be created and have been, getting texts is not so easily overlooked.

I'm sorry about your past, but you didn't mention anywhere where you were beaten to a pulp simply because of the way you look, or how that affected the quality of your life since.

Again, I don't see you burying a child, thank God. Just because you made it doesn't mean everyone will. That's anecdotal logic, something routinely not taken seriously here in just about every other case, and certainly something you would ridicule if that technique was used in an opposing argument.


RE: Well good to know
By YashBudini on 10/7/2011 12:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
I'd omit the 2nd paragraph if I could, but in many cases these teasings can and do escalate into something more serious.

You don't need physical harm to hurt people, even adults get that. That's why solitary confinement is viewed by prisoners as something to be avoided.


RE: Well good to know
By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/2011 4:39:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Funny, case law is clear: Some forms of speach that are hurtful to others [IE: Yelling "Fire" in a theatre] are already restricted.


Yes because people have been killed when that's happened due to causing a human stampede. However Liberals extending that to "hurt feelings" is just so classically them. The Nanny State wagon rolls on. Also you can choose to leave a forum or put people on ignore, you have a choice. You do not HAVE to deal with it if it upsets you so much. If you're sitting in a movie and someone causes a riot by yelling "FIRE", that's a completely different manner. Your physical well-being is being threatened and you have NO choice in the matter.

I seriously hope you see a difference between the two. Common sense should at least be a factor here.


On the bright side...
By theapparition on 10/5/2011 4:42:20 PM , Rating: 3
The anti-trolling provision would make it illegal for Tony and Pirks to post, so I have to say, I am slightly torn....




RE: On the bright side...
By Pirks on 10/5/2011 4:54:35 PM , Rating: 2
I'm torn too since Motoman and the cheesy clown won't be able to make legal posts too. Hmm lemme think...


RE: On the bright side...
By ClownPuncher on 10/5/2011 5:05:57 PM , Rating: 4
I'll bite your legs off.


RE: On the bright side...
By Pirks on 10/5/2011 7:14:00 PM , Rating: 2
Buzz off, you're not the cheesy one I'm talking about


RE: On the bright side...
By YashBudini on 10/5/2011 8:19:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'll bite your legs off

Well OK, but you'll have to change your name to reflect the escalation.


Wake up! Rise Up!
By Geminiman on 10/5/2011 4:21:06 PM , Rating: 4
Rights are in ate. That are the result of our creator or nature depending upon if you believe in God or not.

That is they are a function of our existence and what is required for us to live.

RIGHTS ARE NOT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT. As the Federalist papers clearly state, the Bill of Rights is nothing more than a stop gap to put a hard stop on the government in case some day it thinks that it has the power to give and take away rights. It is the minimum recognition of those rights, nothing more or less.

The constitution is not living. It is a fixed document that recognizes fact. Those facts do not change. The interpretation of those words similarly cannot and should not change in a just society. These politicians that seek to undermine it by "reinterpreting it" are criminals that are committing treason against everything this country is. If you wish to change the constitution there is only one way to do so: An amendment. Otherwise, sit down, shut up and be free. Use your words to convince instead of government force to coerce. But better yet, get out of everyone else's business and live your own life only for a change.

You are free to do whatever you wish so long as you do not harm another or their property.

You are free to do business with whomever you wish so long as they agree and by whatever terms you mutually agree upon so long as the use of force or fraud is not involved.

Any violation of these two prime rights that are clearly recognized in the declaration of independence (although not in those words) and in the preamble to the constitution is a violation of your rights.

And people: Let's understand! There is no such thing as society. It is an abstraction. I categorization. There are only individuals. Society is the innumerable interactions of INDIVIDUALS with each other. Nothing more or less. You cannot control society because it doesn't exist. You can't defend or otherwise alter society. You can only control individuals and as a side effect you might change the construct named society. And to do so, you must violate the rights of individuals.

There is no such thing as really smart people that are better able to live your life for you. Only you know how to live your life. Only you are responsible for your life. Let's stop this crap and take back the rights that we handed over to corrupt politicians out of laziness.

Let's end the nanny state and let individuals take responsibility for their own lives. Success and failures.




RE: Wake up! Rise Up!
By Zavijava on 10/5/2011 7:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
The constitution is not a "fixed document that recognizes facts". It has an in built mechanism for change, one that has been exercised 27 times -- the first 10 times (the bill of rights) to establish clear limitations against the encroachment of government.

What you call "the innumerable interaction of individuals", most of us call society. I endorse your libertarian philosophy, but lets keep it real. We have to fight for our rights. It is probably easier to do so by recognizing and persuading those with which we live.


RE: Wake up! Rise Up!
By geddarkstorm on 10/6/2011 2:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
I think you totally missed the point. The OP stated about amendments. And why does the constitution have amendments, and why are they important and different than this case? An amendment requires the entirety of the nation to evaluate it and then no less than 2/3rds to agree. It's an incredibly stringent process, the most so in our political system. A little law passed in congress to change the constitution will bypasses the public and only has to deal with what the politicians think. No 2/3rds majority needed. Then, voila, our rights are gone.

That's the difference.

If they wanted to do this reinventing of the first amendment through an amendment, that'd be fine, as we could shoot it down. But this tomfoolery proposed here is not fine.

Though, I hardly believe it'll go anywhere, just a bunch of hot air from people acting insane.


RE: Wake up! Rise Up!
By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 3:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
Both parties contain a certain number of arses that will use any situation possible as a pulpit for notoriety. Whatever it takes to get into the limelight. Press coverage has nothing to do with reasoning whatsoever.


Thomas Jefferson
By Ringold on 10/5/2011 7:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
He, and Adams, and others, saw these issues coming. The method of delivery may be new, but it's condescending to think people from an earlier era couldn't comprehend todays issues. On the contrary, todays issues sound like crap that's been going on ever since men started scribbling things on cave walls. This is far from the first banking bust, for example, or government default.

quote:
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.

Letter to Abigail Adams, February 22, 1787

quote:
The example of changing a constitution by assembling the wise men of the state, instead of assembling armies, will be worth as much to the world as the former examples we had give them. The constitution, too, which was the result of our deliberation, is unquestionably the wisest ever yet presented to men.


Letter to David Humphreys, March 18, 1789

quote:
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.

Letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788




RE: Thomas Jefferson
By YashBudini on 10/5/2011 8:16:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
by assembling the wise men of the state,

Really? What state has any of those? Sounds like the oldest endangered species from here.


RE: Thomas Jefferson
By Omega215D on 10/5/2011 11:53:46 PM , Rating: 2
We have a few roaming around but they're refusal to be bought doesn't help them to gain any favors and thus remain obscure.


RE: Thomas Jefferson
By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 2:40:39 PM , Rating: 2
Which is why they quit early in disgust. Cleaning house is required, but good luck with that, you can't even get decent campaign finance reform, hell you can't even get a moderate amount of transparency anymore.

I'd love to hear what our forefathers would think of the Supreme Court's decision to call corporations people too. Like would they pack their bags and move back to England?


RE: Thomas Jefferson
By Omega215D on 10/6/2011 3:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely get people to take up arms again. These are revolutionists you're talking about. They weren't perfect themselves but it's the best we've gotten.


Ah poor Americans
By derricker on 10/5/2011 9:10:19 PM , Rating: 2
USofA is changing so fast, with the country going the third world way and now this, the dawn of a fascist police state.




RE: Ah poor Americans
By Omega215D on 10/5/2011 11:55:35 PM , Rating: 2
Considering that this sounds like grounds for treason we should be allowed to execute any public official that encourages the destruction of our constitutional rights.


RE: Ah poor Americans
By mephit13 on 10/6/2011 4:31:17 PM , Rating: 2
You don't know what treason is.


RE: Ah poor Americans
By Omega215D on 10/6/2011 6:35:37 PM , Rating: 2
"...or in adhering to their enemies"

I consider such an action to be just that.


RE: Ah poor Americans
By mephit13 on 10/7/2011 10:27:10 AM , Rating: 2
You can consider it whatever you want, that won't make you right. Proposing a law is not and never will be an act of treason. Stop turning this is to more than it really is.


don't let them divide you
By HotPlasma on 10/6/2011 7:43:51 AM , Rating: 3
Let's stop talking about Democrats this and Republicans that. We need to think of this as someone in our government trying to take a freedom away from ALL OF US. Today it's some Democrats. The inappropriately named Patriot Act was the Republicans. The Democrats got elected by saying the Patriot Act was wrong, then did nothing about it once in office.

Both parties are trying to take away our rights. Don't let them.




RE: don't let them divide you
By derricker on 10/6/2011 8:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
would have given you +10 if I could, some people are just like sheep, they don't get that if this is to pass it's the first step from many that will be taken to keep taking people's civil rights away.

do you remember that g8 meetings that was about regulating the internet and that happened to be around all of revolutions in the middle east??

how can people be so blind as to not realize that this (and italy's and who knows what else is coming) is a primer to implement those "regulations"

change yelling "fire" in a theater with "injustice" in a protest and you can guess where this is going to.


RE: don't let them divide you
By Reclaimer77 on 10/6/11, Rating: 0
RE: don't let them divide you
By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 9:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Both parties are trying to take away our rights.


Your post is redundant redundant.


RE: don't let them divide you
By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 9:27:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Both parties are trying to take away our rights. Don't let them.

Sorry, you're way too late. Each side has figured out how to get 1/2 the middle class to turn on the other, so they can pursue their agenda, while sheeple battle with each other.

No greater mission was ever accomplished. No pilot required, urine test negative.


There have ALWAYS been limits to free speech
By code65536 on 10/5/2011 8:54:43 PM , Rating: 2
The classic textbook example, as established by the courts, is crying fire in a crowded theatre and causing a stampede. That would not be covered under free speech.

Exemptions are everywhere. Libel and slander are not protected speech, either. If someone threatens to kill me, I can press charges of assault. Inciting someone to commit a criminal act is not legal, either. Etc.

Do I agree with this bill? No, I think it reaches too far. But I cringe at the profound ignorance on display whenever I see people run with the "speech is absolutely free" line.




RE: There have ALWAYS been limits to free speech
By 91TTZ on 10/6/2011 10:15:13 AM , Rating: 2
But people are trying to equate something that does NOT incite mass panic to something that DOES incite mass panic and are using that flawed comparison to support the bill.

Cyberbullying is much more akin to the false rumors that kids would often spread about other kids. It was never nice but not illegal. It's nothing at all like yelling fire in a theater.


By The Raven on 10/6/2011 12:26:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cyber-bullying is much more akin to the false rumors that kids would often spread about other kids. It was never nice but not illegal.
Good call. But it should be said that there are already consequences established via school codes of conduct. In such ways speech can be limited. Also within private industry. So if anyone fears cyber-bullying they can take it up with the school board, etc. Otherwise they just need to get off line. Big gov't is just trying to find another way to get their feet in our doors in the name of our 'safety'.


By YashBudini on 10/6/2011 9:22:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's nothing at all like yelling fire in a theater.

Explain that to the parent burying their kid. I'm sure the distinction will hold plenty of value.


Well...
By bernardl on 10/5/2011 4:45:45 PM , Rating: 3
Frankly, how is the freedom of speech even relevant when:

1. Most mainstream media are controlled by large corporations with vested interest in the lobbies funding the elected representatives and driving their policies,
2. Many Americans have been manipulated into refusing to even discuss anything that questions their "Americanism",
3. The policy of fear/insecurity has worked so well that many Americans are in a state of overall fear such that survival is the only thing they can really focus on?

Why restrict freedom of speech when people are restricting themselves to speak freely anyway?

Cheers,
Bernard




RE: Well...
By Invane on 10/5/2011 8:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely correct. Manipulation of the media is the government's biggest ace in their sleeve. They've been using it a long time to put the American people where they want them. It's a cruel, insidious, and subtle form of control.


RE: Well...
By YashBudini on 10/5/2011 8:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many Americans have been manipulated into refusing to even discuss anything that questions their "Americanism"

What easier way to make someone subservient than to make it unpatriotic to question anything about the government? Or more accurately what they say the government is and is not?

Priests for instance, don't refer to them as "their flock" for nothing. Question your political party leader and you will be cast out in much the same way. It's all rather convenient, isn't it?


Did anyone read the document?
By jeepga on 10/5/2011 6:36:26 PM , Rating: 2
First of all the I'm not a democrat. Not really a republican either -- I'm an equal opportunity hater. I generally like Jason's articles, but this one misses the boat.

The quoted paragraph that I'll call the "proponents of a more refined first amendment" paragraph is taken out of context. The preceding paragraph is the "proponents of free speech" stand. Neither are the stand of the authors. You need to read further for that.

At the end of the section on page 36 the article points to current case law that explains, "speech could only be restricted with regards to 'words that inflict injury or otherwise incite immediate violence or [breaches] of peace." The following paragraph says, "the independent democratic conference believes there should be consequences for those who cyberbully...and that those consequences proposed in this bill are within the above stated parameters of constitutional law."

I find this bill problematic for other reasons, but I don't see it as being an afront to the first amendment. That said, I wouldn't be surprised that, if passed, future case law points to and uses that same paragraph out of context in order to erode our rights even further.

My apologies if someone already pointed this out. I quickly scanned through the comments, but did not read them all -- I spent too much time already reading the document.




RE: Did anyone read the document?
By gamerk2 on 10/6/2011 8:31:35 AM , Rating: 2
The law is basically an extension to the "Yelling Fire in a Theatre" reasoning: Speach specifically to harm others is allowed to be regulated. Thats the line the Supreme Court has taken most of the 20th century as well.

Glad SOMEBODY here actually bothered to read the bill first; thats one more then I expected.

And BTW, is anybody shocked that this was a JM article? Is anyone else getting tired of his political agenda here?


RE: Did anyone read the document?
By 91TTZ on 10/6/2011 10:06:43 AM , Rating: 2
Yelling fire in a theater would incite mass local panic. People could trample each other while they rush for the exit. In those situations you don't have time to think, you're running to save your life.

Cyberbullying is nothing of the sort. If you see someone saying something bad about you on Facebook you're not going to have people running for their lives. Instead, you'll be sitting there at your computer wondering what to say back to them.

There is no comparison between the two types of situations.


Does this really surprise anyone?
By 91TTZ on 10/5/2011 4:06:33 PM , Rating: 3
Emotional thinkers are usually pretty bad at logic, so it's no surprise that this knee-jerk legislation is awful when it comes to reason.




By YashBudini on 10/5/2011 8:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Emotional thinkers

Oxymoron.


Yup, it's called communism...
By masamasa on 10/5/2011 6:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
...where government abuses power. Shooting democrats with such lame ideas is also a right of citizens. =P




RE: Yup, it's called communism...
By mephit13 on 10/6/2011 11:40:45 AM , Rating: 2
Not even close.


DT_Reader
By Breathless on 10/5/2011 4:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
Where are you now "DT_Reader".

You said on the other article earlier today that you don't see how liberals are trying to end free speech. Here is just one glaringly obvious example, one that I don't think even you could not see.




By SiliconJon on 10/5/2011 4:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
One need only look up antonyms to "free" to see that speech has not been a right for some time now, not that we should use that as an excuse for them to put one more nail in the coffin.

http://thesaurus.com/browse/free

But nothing some newspeak can't fix, now is it. I thereby now declare free to mean the following: limited, with charge, confined, & restrained.

Now tell me that we haven't already upheld that our speech is still free when it is any of the preceding antonyms to free.




So much vague definitions...
By WoWCow on 10/5/2011 4:29:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

1. Leaving hurtful messages online: "LEAVING IMPROPER MESSAGES ON ONLINE MESSAGE BOARDS OR SENDING HURTFUL AND DAMAGING MESSAGES TO OTHERS;"
2. Flaming people online: ""FLAMING" (HURTFUL, CRUEL, AND OFTENTIMES INTIMIDATING MESSAGES INTENDED TO INFLAME, INSIGHT, OR ENRAGE);"
3. "Happy slapping" (a 2005 meme that the befuddled Senators appear to mistake for a current problem): ""HAPPY SLAPPING" (RECORDING PHYSICAL ASSAULTS ON MOBILE PHONES OR DIGITAL CAMERAS, THEN DISTRIBUTING THEM TO OTHERS);"
4. Trolling online: ""TROLLING" (DELIBERATELY AND DECEITFULLY POSTING INFORMATION TO ENTICE GENUINELY HELPFUL PEOPLE TO RESPOND (OFTEN EMOTIONALLY), OFTEN DONE TO PROVOKE OTHERS);"
5. Exclusion of people: "EXCLUSION (INTENTIONALLY AND CRUELLY EXCLUDING SOMEONE FROM AN ONLINE GROUP)."


1. You don't have to read forums and message boards, no one forces you to... In fact, private message boards are mostly similar to people talking behind your back... because they don't want you to know. If the message is on a public board such as a city/state government site (NOT FACEBOOK; THAT IS A PRIVATE COMPANY) involving serious slandering/wrongful claim... I just hope you have a decent lawyer...

2. Flaming is iffy; usually site admins dictate what language can be tolerated; private domains are NOT under user or state/fed government control... Frankly, certain sites even offer 'premium' membership that grants you admin privileges as well... to remove said flamers and/or their messages.
(Oh god I hope I didn't give facebook another idea for users paying for admin privileges to control what others can say about themselves).

3. Well, independent reporters/witnesses use phone cams to record police brutality/other crimes; are you outlawing those too? Modern news reporters typically don't even help the victims they witness or record being abused/assaulted/cheated. The journalists are there to bring 'news'; how news is defined isn't something I can say. This section needs a better definition.

4. See flaming. Unless this is also referring to the infamous Nigerian e-mail scams... In which case the FBI is already handling it. http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/fraud/internet_fra...

5. I want a better paying job at a better work environment but hey, companies don't just hire people as they are. Should I be filing a criminal or civil complaint? Employers do not even have to disclose why they didn't hire you. Should social groups even have to disclose why they don't let you in? (Hint, check the prerequisites!)




I dont know...
By supermitsuba on 10/5/2011 4:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
Why you would ever want to limit free speech. It is really a dumb idea. You want to know the who the next person that is about to commit a REAL crime. If you cut off speech, they are just going to be able to get away with it easier by not letting the cat out of the bag soon. STUPID!!! GOD!!




I have but one word for this
By captainBOB on 10/5/2011 4:56:40 PM , Rating: 2
NOPE




Extremely Relevent
By Chaosforce on 10/5/2011 8:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
By BZDTemp on 10/6/2011 6:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
It's not only some Democrats that doesn't get it.

How about this bill suggested in Italy (which have made Wiki Italy shut down in protest):

"The law (“DDL intercettazioni,” roughly translated as Wiretapping Act) would require every website to publish within 48 hours a correction or comment relating to any content an applicant has deemed “detrimental to their image,” as they put it. If that sounds vague, broad, and onerous, that’s because it is.

If this law were passed, Wikipedia and other websites would have to post unedited and unsolicited “corrections” to any content deemed objectionable by any person. This content would have to be displayed without any review of the offending content or the “correction.” It doesn’t take an expert to see that this law is contrary to the principles of truth and openness."
(Quote from http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/06/italian-wikipedia...




By ajcarroll on 10/6/2011 9:24:37 AM , Rating: 2
Did you read the actual paper? The paragraph quoted in the context of the article is juxtaposing 2 points of view, it's the lead in for a quote of the British Philospher John Stuart Mills.

They then proceed to factually reference a number of court cases, including "People V. Deitze", which included an explanation that "SPEECH COULD ONLY BE RESTRICTED WITH REGARDS TO “WORDS THAT INFLICT INJURY OR OTHERWISE INCITE IMMEDIATE VIOLENCE OR [BREACHES] OF PEACE,”AND THAT IS WHAT REMAINS THE LAW NOW"

They then wrap it up by stating that they believe that there should be consequences for cyberbullying and that those conseqeunces fall within the parameters of existing constitional law".

So it's simply false to claim they are on a crusade to rip apart the first amendment.

Their claim is that within the existing parameters of the law, there can be penalties for cyberbullying.

It may well turn out that they are flat out wrong - ie. it may turn out that, no, they can't within the confines of the law punish cyberbullying....

But to imply they are trying to rip apart the first amendment is a flat out lie. They believe they can fit within the first amendment.

Bottom line they may well be wrong - but what they are proposiong is no where near as extreme as this blog claims. They are claiming within the confines of precidence they can add penatlies for cyberbullying, that don't collide with the first amendment.

My guess is they are wrong - but I don't see what they are trying to do as a threat to the first amendment itself, but rather an attempt to fit with in it.




Freespeech extends To a Point
By Mike Acker on 10/6/2011 1:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
There are certain things for wiich you may not claim a First Amendment defense including (e.g.) filing a false police report, child porn, purgery under oath, spraying grafitti on buildings, creating a false alarm (like yelling "fire" in a theatre ), defamation of character, &c

these are violation of other ordnances -- which are a matter of settled law. To mount a first amendment defense you will have to overturn the statute that you are charged under. That will be difficult as the existing statutes are a matter of settled law.

Read Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil And Political Liberty. That is closer to what we actually go by.

The democrats may propose some of these ordnances but they will have to define what the elements of each offense are. And it will be up to the courts to decide whether the definitions are "too vague" -- in which case the law will be struck as un-constitutional under the First ASmendment. Which these politicians will discover still applies.

If we the people apply it by appropriate dialog.




Freespeech extends To a Point
By Mike Acker on 10/6/2011 1:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
There are certain things for which you may not claim a First Amendment defense including (e.g.) filing a false police report, child porn, purgery under oath, spraying grafitti on buildings, creating a false alarm (like yelling "fire" in a theatre ), defamation of character, &c

these are violation of other ordnances -- which are a matter of settled law. To mount a first amendment defense you will have to overturn the statute that you are charged under. That will be difficult as the existing statutes are a matter of settled law.

Read Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil And Political Liberty. That is closer to what we actually go by.

The democrats may propose some of these ordnances but they will have to define what the elements of each offense are. And it will be up to the courts to decide whether the definitions are "too vague" -- in which case the law will be struck as un-constitutional under the First Amendment. Which these politicians will discover still applies.

If we the people apply it by appropriate dialog.




By Trisped on 10/6/2011 2:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
While Freedom of speech has be stretched from its original intended definition, I do not think this is an example of stretching or changing the original intention.

That being said, I believe these new laws do represent a flawed attempt to solve a very real problem of internet harassment. A number of incidents of suicide due to cyber bullying have been reported, and in a few cases those performing the bullying were found (or admitted) to be purposefully and knowingly provoking the victims to suicide.

While there are good reasons for these laws (discouraging the bullying and allowing the families of the victims some closure) I think educating people on how to behave online and parents on how to speak to their adolescent and teen age children would be more effective.




communism 101 people
By shin0bi272 on 10/6/2011 5:25:19 PM , Rating: 2
when the government gives you your rights they can take them away at any time. Remember that next time youre voting for "change" or "hope" or "fundamentally transforming America".

The political party known as the democrats has been taken over for a long time by the progressives. The progressives changed their name in the 20's to Liberal, stealing the name from european liberals who shared 2 common values with the progressives. The right to privacy and civil liberties. The progressives in reality are actually marxists or fascists (depending on their stance on open borders) and they masquerade as being for the little guy while they heap on regulations and grow government to take away your freedoms. Of course they take them away by offering you a choice... Oh you want your social security that youve paid into your entire working life? oh well you have to take this government run health care system too or you wont get any social security. See its a choice people... go without or take it all. That's their plan for us all too. Keep growing government (even the military industrial complex) till everyone is on the government dole... then no one will have a right to complain about the size of government because they will all be living off of it. Then the government can take all of the money and redistribute it to those who need it and oh yeah look we're a communist country. See it doesnt take much to lose freedom... and if you keep giving up freedoms (i.e. the airport security lines) for security you will have neither and you will deserve what you have.




From the party of
By overlandpark4me on 10/6/2011 8:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
that comes out and says, let's be civil, until they open their mouth. And now as a bonus, let's squelch those who we don't agree with, or could harm them politically.




By highlander2107 on 10/7/2011 12:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
This guy is a joke.




In my state
By Fracture on 10/7/2011 2:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
If this happened in my state, I'd be organizing recall elections immediately. Forget partisan bias, the notion that free speech is a privilege is completely un-American.




Go ahead
By RightWingExtremist on 10/8/2011 8:22:55 AM , Rating: 2
Go ahead.Revoke the 1st amendment......We will just use the 2nd amendment to override the decision again.....1776 may be closer than it appears.




Lol..
By pandemonium on 10/8/2011 9:03:33 AM , Rating: 2
This country needs to grow up.




It can be done in small steps
By marraco on 10/8/2011 10:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
Bit to bit. Liberty is removed.




From what I understand..
By just4U on 10/9/2011 12:03:05 PM , Rating: 2
From what I understand .. Forums (and social media sites) are a democracy. You have to follow set guidelines put forth by the site.. Freedom of speech does not apply.




THIS Insanity
By mindless1 on 10/11/2011 3:52:17 AM , Rating: 2
... is the problem, NOT mere words on a computer screen.




By johnsmith9875 on 10/11/2011 2:45:29 PM , Rating: 2
And more about codifying into law what is the definition of harassment. The digital age has given new avenues to commit this type of crime, and yes it IS a crime.

Inflammatory biased article with a misleading headline.




The beauty of Free Speech...
By msheredy on 10/6/2011 7:31:00 PM , Rating: 1
... is that I can say FUCK you Dems, because that is how I feel and I don't have to worry about it.




Please
By Dr of crap on 10/6/11, Rating: 0
Jason should
By MPE on 10/5/11, Rating: -1
RE: Jason should
By MrBlastman on 10/5/2011 4:21:45 PM , Rating: 5
Give them an inch and they'll take a mile. Never give in to the Government. They are not there to protect you--only themselves!


RE: Jason should
By MPE on 10/5/2011 4:50:01 PM , Rating: 2
Free Speech is limited right now. Porn is not absolute, "Fire in a crowded theater", nudity and violence, etc.


RE: Jason should
By Ringold on 10/5/2011 7:26:14 PM , Rating: 2
It should be unlimited, though.

"The whole principle of censorship is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak."

Heinlein, if I remember right.


RE: Jason should
By YashBudini on 10/5/2011 8:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The whole principle of censorship is wrong.

1. When a 2 hour movie is in a TV time slot of 2 hours, but it now has 44 minutes of commercials, is that not censorship? And why isn't it object-able or even addressable?

2. When a TV interview is edited in such a way as to take the response to a question totally out of context (usually by dropping the later portion of the response) is that also not censorship? Why do we allow that to happen? Why is that legal? If people really felt strongly about censorship this one would be routinely addressed.


RE: Jason should
By YashBudini on 10/5/2011 8:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Porn is not absolute,

It's rather ironic porn is protected by free speech; most porn have zero or little vocal speech.


RE: Jason should
By 91TTZ on 10/5/2011 4:30:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
While it is a poor analogy, if you (Mick) read the entire document you would see the point it was making is not a new or even that controversial. The paper discusses where you CURBED Free Speech. Free Speech is NOT absolute. Never was, never will. This is why the Founders used the word "prohibit" and not words like "control".


I think that the intent in the Bill of Rights was pretty clear. But people whose power is limited by the Bill of Rights tend to want to erode it any way they can.

If you follow your logic you can get a situation where you have "free speech" but cannot offend people, cannot talk about the government, cannot talk about illegal activities, cannot talk about limiting a corporation's power, cannot talk about politically incorrect things, etc.

The limitations on free speech were only implemented for some very specific things, and now some careless politicians are using those loopholes to cram more and more exceptions in there.


RE: Jason should
By Geminiman on 10/5/2011 4:33:11 PM , Rating: 2
If you or anyone has any question as to the intent of the Bill of Rights, the founders left a handy guide: The Federalist Papers. It describes each, the motivation for writing it, the intent and their fears about how government would usurp those powers. Unfortunately they didn't go far enough in enumerating that the government does not grant rights they are innate, even though the Federalist papers clearly demonstrate this understanding.

I strongly suggest everyone read them. Our lives depend upon it.


RE: Jason should
By klstay on 10/5/2011 4:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
What?!?

I sincerely hope you meant the anti-federalist papers. The federalists to a great degree fought not to have the bill of rights included, but gave in as a compromise.


RE: Jason should
By ClownPuncher on 10/5/2011 5:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
You must have missed something. The Federalists were the biggest opponents to drafting the Bill of Rights. They were also monarchist apologists with ties to nobility. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed them to be traitors to the US.


RE: Jason should
By mkrech on 10/5/2011 5:20:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
lrn2read

Is that some kind of troll code?


RE: Jason should
By Firebat5 on 10/6/2011 2:39:38 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry I just couldn't let this lie go.
The First Amendment reads, in part, as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech".

It does not use the word "prohibition" when refering to laws made by the U.S. Congress affecting free speech.

The Constitution prohibits the "abridging" of free speech by the federal government.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge

In case you can't be bothered to click the link, here is the top definition:
1 a archaic: deprive
b: to reduce in scope: diminish

"Learn to read the entire document" you say. I say right back at you! Learn to read!

No one here will probably ever say that free speech is an absolute, rather a majority will contend that the federal government has absolutely no authority to control, limit, diminish, or otherwise lay waste to the freedom of speech. If you want your local sherriff to nock on your door after you post something online, fine and dandy! If you want the your state police tracking down cyber bullies, fine and dandy. If you want your state to get together with other states and agree to prosecute the local DTech troll, great! Just don't tell me the federal government has the authority to do it, because they don't.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki