Ban 'anonymous' speech online?
Comments
-
Do you think it is necessary to feel what others are experiencingredrock wrote:I'm still amazed as to how some people still don't want to open their eyes and see what this is all about. :roll: Still only one blinkered, uninformed (though allegedly researched :? ), histrionic view of a bill, latching on to one word and making a whole drama around this one word to suit a spurious point of view. Oh.. and underhandedly insulting everyone on the way.
In my opinion
Just saying.
To quote norm:
Moving on...... Hopefully by the time this site goes down tomorrow and the new one comes up, this thread will be long forgotten. Though the bill should not and should continue to be opposed!
to understand and know the problem at hand?
Have you read the victims stories?
Can you continue to dismiss the problem after doing so?
I find the above statements quite underhandedly insulting ... funny how that works.
This by innuendo though not at all like what real victims are traumatized from.
This is a walk in the park compared, I know this
because I try to feel the victims that I have researched.
I will continue to work towards laws that will bring peace to those that suffer.
Wherever and whenever ...
STOP THE HATE ... there is nothing more hateful and negative then cyber bullying.0 -
No again :? removal of the post would go by guidelines the administrators createCosmo wrote:ADD: The big difference between moderated sites and this crappy legislation is... the moderators here (and on other Open/Topical Web forums) are not required to post our names and home addresses if some over sensitive, pansie fuck reports us on unfounded allegations of cyber-abuse basedupon subjective messages.
that they would deem offensive.
Just like here!
Then the offender can choose to have the post deleted
which was required by the adminstrators because it broke the guideline rules
OR post their info.
Here we have ... delete post and a timeout no choice in the matter.
Key is all sites will have guidelines to protect those who want to visit
and the guidelines that each site enacted will be followed ... novel idea!
0 -
pandora wrote:g under p wrote:I would not want this proposal to become law.
Peace
why?
no problem with a privacy issue, no rights lost
do you think we are over controlled here?
Our guidelines the least bit unfair?
Let me start off where I left this place and fell asleep. I've said a hundred times already, too much control given if this proposal is implemented, subject to possible abuse by various websites and will NOT end cyberbullying in ANY Shape or FORM.
You are trying to sell this and I'm not buying this proposal.
No, but in your case maybe so I think you said once you were banned...knock on wood I have never been.
No, it appears I don't see too much cyberbulying around here So I feel this law is TOTALLY unnecessary. Roast it then put a fork in it then let it wilt away....veggies that is of course.
The cyber bullies can be dealt with without this law which I've posted some methods in which to do so earlier. In turn you have said you own them
....well then if you *own* those methods on how to deal with cb's then what's the need for this law/proposal?
Peace*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
pandora wrote:
perhaps that is because we are a private club with paid membership... :fp:Cosmo wrote:
...Cosmo wrote:The moderators/site administrators here enforce the code of conduct as they deem appropriate. The same goes on other moderated topical forums. The system works... no bullys here.
That is EXACTLY WHY this legislation in New York is ridiculous and not needed. That is the point that is being made... but, not, necessarily, being understood.
ADD: The big difference between moderated sites and this crappy legislation is... the moderators here (and on other Open/Topical Web forums) are not required to post our names and home addresses if some over sensitive, pansie fuck reports us on unfounded allegations of cyber-abuse basedupon subjective messages.
Shhh...ps... whispering....I've never paid for my membership but somehow I'm here or maybe every now and then they let one of us get in for free.
Peace*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
As some of you may have already noticed, I'm sometimes a sucker for the English language.
I find the etymology of 'bully' quite ironic.
bully (n.)
1530s, originally "sweetheart," applied to either sex, from Du. boel "lover, brother," probably dim. of M.H.G. buole "brother," of uncertain origin (cf. Ger. buhle "lover"). Meaning deteriorated 17c. through "fine fellow," "blusterer," to "harasser of the weak" (1680s, from bully-ruffian, 1650s). Perhaps this was by influence of bull (n.1), but a connecting sense between "lover" and "ruffian" may be in "protector of a prostitute," which was one sense of bully (though not specifically attested until 1706). The verb is first attested 1710. The expression meaning "worthy, jolly, admirable" (esp. in 1864 U.S. slang bully for you!) is first attested 1680s, and preserves an earlier, positive sense of the word.
And why this talk of bullying? Bullying is a persistent behaviour (whether spoken or written word or physical actions) - not a one off thing. Someone posting a comment offending your sensitivity does not constitute bullying though, depending on content, could be libel/slander (or assault if physical). There are laws already against that. Also, there are no legal definitions of 'bullying' - this for a reason - it's all subjective. So, bearing that in mind, and since this bill is basically forcing someone to post private details if a person does not like what you have written ONCE, it will not do anything for bullying. And it is wrong to 'promote' the bill in this way. It's obvious what it is for. Curbing freedom of speech being one of the 'drawbacks'. And yes, it does affect free speech and right to privacy. I don't like what you say, I demand you 'remove' your remark OR publish all your personal details (For what? So I can send the 'heavies' around?). A choice? Hmmm... between your right to free speech and your right to privacy. Wow.... good going Government!
This post is not in response to anyone - I'm just making an observation which does not require any response/discussion. I'm not debating, just putting some thoughts together.
And no, I'm not a cold-hearted bitch though if you feel better about thinking of me that way, it's no skin off my nose.
0 -
pandora wrote:
Do you think it is necessary to feel what others are experiencingredrock wrote:I'm still amazed as to how some people still don't want to open their eyes and see what this is all about. :roll: Still only one blinkered, uninformed (though allegedly researched :? ), histrionic view of a bill, latching on to one word and making a whole drama around this one word to suit a spurious point of view. Oh.. and underhandedly insulting everyone on the way.
In my opinion
Just saying.
To quote norm:
Moving on...... Hopefully by the time this site goes down tomorrow and the new one comes up, this thread will be long forgotten. Though the bill should not and should continue to be opposed!
to understand and know the problem at hand?
Have you read the victims stories?
Can you continue to dismiss the problem after doing so?
I find the above statements quite underhandedly insulting ... funny how that works.
This by innuendo though not at all like what real victims are traumatized from.
This is a walk in the park compared, I know this
because I try to feel the victims that I have researched.
I will continue to work towards laws that will bring peace to those that suffer.
Wherever and whenever ...
STOP THE HATE ... there is nothing more hateful and negative then cyber bullying.
While we do get that break from this forum maybe some of us can do some more research, study and find sources. Then come back with a new angle on all of this and we can start anewwith this crusade of internet cyberbullying.
THERE HAS GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY.
Peace*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
Cosmo wrote:
..Jeanwah wrote:And that's the difference between being about love / peace and being about hate. If one would rather expend their energy pushing for legislation to control cyber-bullying (which is really about govt control, but anyway) rather than focusing on real love and peace through positive means, then that energy is negative, angst filled energy. Pandora is expending negative, while g under p expends positive energy. Because anything involving issues regarding control is negative.
What I learned... because I oppose this legislation, I am a victim hating cyber-bully who is pro-rapist, for child abuse who does not believe that mental cruelty exists.
...
I'm kind of an asshole, aren't I?
We're all assholes here Cosmo. :roll:Post edited by Jeanwah on0 -
Yes you have given suggestions but research shows it is not enough.g under p wrote:pandora wrote:g under p wrote:I would not want this proposal to become law.
Peace
why?
no problem with a privacy issue, no rights lost
do you think we are over controlled here?
Our guidelines the least bit unfair?
Let me start off where I left this place and fell asleep. I've said a hundred times already, too much control given if this proposal is implemented, subject to possible abuse by various websites and will NOT end cyberbullying in ANY Shape or FORM.
You are trying to sell this and I'm not buying this proposal.
No, but in your case maybe so I think you said once you were banned...knock on wood I have never been.
No, it appears I don't see too much cyberbulying around here So I feel this law is TOTALLY unnecessary. Roast it then put a fork in it then let it wilt away....veggies that is of course.
The cyber bullies can be dealt with without this law which I've posted some methods in which to do so earlier. In turn you have said you own them ....well then if you *own* those methods on how to deal with cb's then what's the need for this law/proposal?
Peace
The problem is escalating.
Have you read about the effects and characteristics of cyber bullying?
Perhaps they were found with those suggestions.
Are you not allowing yourself to feel the real problem?
Are you are basing your opinion on this website alone?
Have you read the victims stories and felt their situations?
It has nothing to do with being banned only in that
I respect the fact that this site has its protective measures in place
and I fully support that. So much so I like this proposal requiring other sites
to have guidelines.
This site is an example of what the law wants for all so one
would think you might want that for all too
seeing as you are enjoying the climate here.0 -
redrock wrote:As some of you may have already noticed, I'm sometimes a sucker for the English language.
I find the etymology of 'bully' quite ironic.
bully (n.)
1530s, originally "sweetheart," applied to either sex, from Du. boel "lover, brother," probably dim. of M.H.G. buole "brother," of uncertain origin (cf. Ger. buhle "lover"). Meaning deteriorated 17c. through "fine fellow," "blusterer," to "harasser of the weak" (1680s, from bully-ruffian, 1650s). Perhaps this was by influence of bull (n.1), but a connecting sense between "lover" and "ruffian" may be in "protector of a prostitute," which was one sense of bully (though not specifically attested until 1706). The verb is first attested 1710. The expression meaning "worthy, jolly, admirable" (esp. in 1864 U.S. slang bully for you!) is first attested 1680s, and preserves an earlier, positive sense of the word.
And why this talk of bullying? Bullying is a persistent behaviour (whether spoken or written word or physical actions) - not a one off thing. Someone posting a comment offending your sensitivity does not constitute bullying though, depending on content, could be libel/slander (or assault if physical). There are laws already against that. Also, there are no legal definitions of 'bullying' - this for a reason - it's all subjective. So, bearing that in mind, and since this bill is basically forcing someone to post private details if a person does not like what you have written ONCE, it will not do anything for bullying. And it is wrong to 'promote' the bill in this way. It's obvious what it is for. Curbing freedom of speech being one of the 'drawbacks'. And yes, it does affect free speech and right to privacy. I don't like what you say, I demand you 'remove' your remark OR publish all your personal details (For what? So I can send the 'heavies' around?). A choice? Hmmm... between your right to free speech and your right to privacy. Wow.... good going Government!
This post is not in response to anyone - I'm just making an observation which does not require any response/discussion. I'm not debating, just putting some thoughts together.
And no, I'm not a cold-hearted bitch though if you feel better about thinking of me that way, it's no skin off my nose.
SEE, that's what I'm talking about a DIFFERENT ANGLE and an angle that makes ALL the sense in the world. You are correct in that bullying is a constant and persistant behaviour, I know I was bullied for a year in Junior High and it never stopped till I made it stop.
The whole proposal formed so far has way too many subjective holes in it doesn't and won't hold any water to curb cyberbullying.
I wonder if I can get away with calling my lady my *bully* 8-)
Peace*We CAN bomb the World to pieces, but we CAN'T bomb it into PEACE*...Michael Franti
*MUSIC IS the expression of EMOTION.....and that POLITICS IS merely the DECOY of PERCEPTION*
.....song_Music & Politics....Michael Franti
*The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite INSANE*....Nikola Tesla(a man who shaped our world of electricity with his futuristic inventions)0 -
Jeanwah wrote:
We're all assholes here Cosmo, according to one person. The more the hate is ignored, the better.pandora wrote:Does that make some assholes?
For me no because they know not what they do...
the assholes are the cyber bullies who know exactly what they do!
Pretty much say what the one believes and nope no cyber bullies here :fp:
STOP THE HATE0 -
Do you think are guidelines are unfair here?redrock wrote:As some of you may have already noticed, I'm sometimes a sucker for the English language.
I find the etymology of 'bully' quite ironic.
bully (n.)
1530s, originally "sweetheart," applied to either sex, from Du. boel "lover, brother," probably dim. of M.H.G. buole "brother," of uncertain origin (cf. Ger. buhle "lover"). Meaning deteriorated 17c. through "fine fellow," "blusterer," to "harasser of the weak" (1680s, from bully-ruffian, 1650s). Perhaps this was by influence of bull (n.1), but a connecting sense between "lover" and "ruffian" may be in "protector of a prostitute," which was one sense of bully (though not specifically attested until 1706). The verb is first attested 1710. The expression meaning "worthy, jolly, admirable" (esp. in 1864 U.S. slang bully for you!) is first attested 1680s, and preserves an earlier, positive sense of the word.
And why this talk of bullying? Bullying is a persistent behaviour (whether spoken or written word or physical actions) - not a one off thing. Someone posting a comment offending your sensitivity does not constitute bullying though, depending on content, could be libel/slander (or assault if physical). There are laws already against that. Also, there are no legal definitions of 'bullying' - this for a reason - it's all subjective. So, bearing that in mind, and since this bill is basically forcing someone to post private details if a person does not like what you have written ONCE, it will not do anything for bullying. And it is wrong to 'promote' the bill in this way. It's obvious what it is for. Curbing freedom of speech being one of the 'drawbacks'. And yes, it does affect free speech and right to privacy. I don't like what you say, I demand you 'remove' your remark OR publish all your personal details (For what? So I can send the 'heavies' around?). A choice? Hmmm... between your right to free speech and your right to privacy. Wow.... good going Government!
This post is not in response to anyone - I'm just making an observation which does not require any response/discussion. I'm not debating, just putting some thoughts together.
And no, I'm not a cold-hearted bitch though if you feel better about thinking of me that way, it's no skin off my nose.
Do you feel we are without freedoms here?
Do you think our freedom of speech is compromised by the rules here?
Do you feel this site has responsibilities in that they should have protective guidelines?
The guidelines imposed by individual site administrators means it is not subjective.
It has a definition of what is considered inappropriate behavior like we have here.
This is what the proposal is providing asking of, for all sites.0 -
g under p wrote:The whole proposal formed so far has way too many subjective holes in it doesn't and won't hold any water to curb cyberbullying.
The thing is g under p, this type of behaviour is already curbed in so many ways if one really wants to 'deal with it', either from 'within' one's self or, via the terms & conditions of the ISPs, sites, etc. Can be even be progressed up to formal complaints (ie involving police) and all.... Plenty of recourse. You said it yourself: .."until I made it stop."
Depends what she does to/for you.... 8-)g under p wrote:I wonder if I can get away with calling my lady my *bully* 8-)Post edited by redrock on0 -
g under p wrote:I know I was bullied for a year in Junior High and it never stopped till I made it stop.
This is what it's all about. Doing something proactive about it ourselves. That stops bullying, standing up for ourselves, showing self-respect. Pushing mandated cyber laws is a weak and illogical attempt at addressing the issue.0 -
redrock wrote:The thing is g under p, this type of behaviour is already curbed in so many ways if one really wants to 'deal with it', either from 'within' one's self or, via the terms & conditions of the ISPs, sites, etc. Can be even be progressed up to formal complaints (ie involving police) and all.... Plenty of recourse. You said it yourself: .."until I made it stop."
Curbed no it is escalating!
Not all sites are protecting against cyber bullying why we still have the problem.
It is important to understand and feel what others are experiencing right this moment
this while you are claiming the problem is under control and dismissing their victimization
by saying they must handle it themselves.
The offenders need to stop then there is nothing for victims to handle.
STOP THE HATE
The website administrators under the law will provide guidelines to control bullying like we have here and will decide what is deemed inappropriate, like we have here.
We enjoy a website that is victim free, is it too much to ask that that be the same for all?
Why no answers to my previous questions? I've asked many of many here about our site
and if we are happy with how it is run. No answers. I assume we are happy with it, that
the guidelines are acceptable and does not effect any freedoms or rights.
This proposal is requesting the same by law. The same for all.0 -
pandora wrote:this while you are claiming the problem is under control and dismissing their victimization
by saying they must handle it themselves.
Though I did say I wasn't going to continue responding, I will not let this go as you are putting words in my mouth - your words. Read again and try to understand the written word. No such claim made (even if you think you demonstrated this by highlighting part of my post in red). Check out definitions of certain words - open up a dictionary if necessary.
Now it's
from me. Muddle on to your heart's content. 0 -
Laws are to protect ... we need them!Jeanwah wrote:g under p wrote:I know I was bullied for a year in Junior High and it never stopped till I made it stop.
This is what it's all about. Doing something proactive about it ourselves. That stops bullying, standing up for ourselves, showing self-respect. Pushing mandated cyber laws is a weak and illogical attempt at addressing the issue.
You Jeanwah are under the mistaken belief that victims are weak and have no self respect.
This is not true and really shows an extreme bias of people in general.
It shows a judgmental attitude of somehow being better than those
who fall victim to another through no fault of their own.
When one is being victimized it takes daily strength to fight back,
more strength than many who are never challenged this way.
You didn't answer my question ...
Is your opinion the same for children of bullying?
And do you feel then no future laws are needed to help with environmental problems?
That being only proactive individually solves problems globally?
Cyber bullying is an everybody problem just like the environment or any other problem
facing our world. Until people like you stop dismissing it, it will remain a serious problem.
It is based in hate, it is crippling, it spreads like a cancer on society
and it needs to have an end to it.
Stop the hate.0 -
redrock wrote:pandora wrote:this while you are claiming the problem is under control and dismissing their victimization
by saying they must handle it themselves.
Though I did say I wasn't going to continue responding, I will not let this go as you are putting words in my mouth - your words. Read again and try to understand the written word. No such claim made (even if you think you demonstrated this by highlighting part of my post in red). Check out definitions of certain words - open up a dictionary if necessary.
Now it's from me. Muddle on to your heart's content.
why don't you answer questions asked of you to clarify ?
speaking of muddling :?
you agreed with "until I made it stop" yes?
that seems like you are putting bullying on the victims shoulders ... yes?
Ironically that is exactly what this proposal does,
it empowers and allows victims to request an administrator review
a post, like we have here and deem if it is offensive, like we have here
on sites that do not have this luxury.
I must assume that you are happy with our site here, though you will not respond,
so I see in some regards you agree with the law.0 -
pandora wrote:
Laws are to protect ... we need them!Jeanwah wrote:g under p wrote:I know I was bullied for a year in Junior High and it never stopped till I made it stop.
This is what it's all about. Doing something proactive about it ourselves. That stops bullying, standing up for ourselves, showing self-respect. Pushing mandated cyber laws is a weak and illogical attempt at addressing the issue.
You Jeanwah are under the mistaken belief that victims are weak and have no self respect.
This is not true and really shows an extreme bias of people in general.
It shows a judgmental attitude of somehow being better than those
who fall victim to another through no fault of their own.
When one is being victimized it takes daily strength to fight back,
more strength than many who are never challenged this way.
You didn't answer my question ...
Is your opinion the same for children of bullying?
And do you feel then no future laws are needed to help with environmental problems?
That being only proactive individually solves problems globally?
Cyber bullying is an everybody problem just like the environment or any other problem
facing our world. Until people like you stop dismissing it, it will remain a serious problem.
It is based in hate, it is crippling, it spreads like a cancer on society
and it needs to have an end to it.
Stop the hate.
Stop the hate yourself. Stop being a victim. Don't like it? Don't be a victim. If you're offended, I don't care! You control all of those offensive comments in your head. Start being proactive and start actually being a positive person instead of the negative one you are. YOU stop the hate!Post edited by Jeanwah on0 -
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... yc-schools
I'm on Pandora's team now. Stop the hate!
If only these bullies could be identified...this could have been prevented."First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
"With our thoughts we make the world"0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help