Ban 'anonymous' speech online?

Cosmo wrote:

g under p wrote:

I do believe forums and websites can already do this without this proposal and no private info has to be given. Since you already own ways to curb cyberbullying why the great push to implement this proposal? The law then isn't a necessity, shed the blinkers and open up the view.
peace

...
Exactly. Haven't people been banned from this site for abusive language?
Again... this is an area of a greater forum that is set aside for those difficult issues that have no simple solutions. If you can't take criticism from an opposing view... then, you probably shouldn't be argueing your viewpoint in the manner you have chosen... right?
If you want happy thoughts where unicorns fart out cotton candy... there are places you can go and talk about meaningless shit like 'American Idol', instead of hot topics like abortion and gun control.

There is a difference between adult behavior that is respectful and civil in debate and that
which borderlines on immature towards an opposing side.
Criticism really has no place in debate because it is not meant to be personal at all.
Just state ones views and why.


AI is not in the debate forum so it shouldn't be of concern to you or others who like to debate.
There are many topics in other the forums... why would you point out AI?
sometimes there are threads on some silly stuff but all in good fun and to each their own
right? I think I have even heard you say this.

mickeyrat wrote:

who is the judge of what is or isnt slanderous or bullying?

I would like to know this also as far as the law goes

but I would think it may be different for different sites as someone mentioned.

I think it would also pertain to the level of bullying and lies
as far as effecting the victim of the abuse.
Different scenarios have been used that have brought about the proposal.

markin ball wrote:

I use the "ignore" feature found on many sites and forums. Works like a charm. And if they don't have that feature, I'm likely not going to use that sure for long.

When one is under constant ridicule as the victims of bullies are
and they use the ignore feature, it is still only they themselves that are ignoring.
The rest of the world still sees the abuse, so of course it is still there.
It does not go away. This, as I have read, does nothing to help the victim nor stop the bully.

The bully is not stopped until they are punished and even then some will still continue,
it's a need for them as the cowards that they are.

This law will not hurt the average person, no info need be given out
unless a post is requested upon of being abusive by the victim.
This empowers the victim to stop the bully who will not
want their info given out. The administrator will remove the comment and maybe that bully
will not victimize again knowing the outcome.

It is a deterrent.

hedonist wrote:

pandora wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

That's the thing... it is relative (subjective).
Anyone can take anything and claim it to be hostile or mean spirited. Because someone takes offense... does that make it a case of 'bullying'? If so, who gets to make the call on that? The moderator, the person who makes the comment or the fucking pansie that finds every little fucking thing offensive and politically incorrect?
Forcing everyone to say nice shit... does not make everyone nice people.

So you don't think victims are ever brutalized by cyber bullies?
Are you are making this the victims fault?
Women are still found to be at fault for getting themselves raped too :?
is this similar?
You say they are all pansies and are in the wrong then? It is their fault for not being stronger?
Do you feel this way about children too?
Really cosmos?

I could be mistaken, but I took the fucking pansy thing as folks being overly-sensitive and thin-skinned.

Regardless, you somehow jumped from THAT to your rape and children comments?

Wow. Just fucking wow.

Of course because to minimize what is happening to others allows it to happen... like rape and child victimization. I'm sure you can see the connection. Cyber abuse is real!

redrock wrote:

Awwww... here I was thinking that after a few 'reality' posts discussing the possible ramifications of the bill, this thread was back on track. How naive of me. It's 'back' to this whole misinformation (like now giving your details is optional :?), pathos bully thing again, but this time with added comparison with raped women and bullied children being at fault (and underhanded accusations) :fp:

I guess it's back to on the subject.

Though we still have unicorns

And Shifty is playing a free show! (Not that I can go....)

The comparison is real in that cyber bulling makes real victims of no fault of their own.
In the past rape and child victimization was often dismissed, still is in some places of the world.
And it seems this propsal which would give a victim direct recourse against a bully,
while allowing others to keep their privacy, is being dismissed
just as cyber bullying is being dismissed when someone calls the victims "pansies".

Cosmo wrote:

...
That's the thing... it is relative (subjective).
Anyone can take anything and claim it to be hostile or mean spirited. Because someone takes offense... does that make it a case of 'bullying'? If so, who gets to make the call on that? The moderator, the person who makes the comment or the fucking pansie that finds every little fucking thing offensive and politically incorrect?
Forcing everyone to say nice shit... does not make everyone nice people.

Ding, ding, ding!!! Winning post, right here. It's all perspective how we take words written on a page.