Ban 'anonymous' speech online?

g under p wrote:

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.

Maybe said in some kind of jest but it may not be a bad idea as bullying is an important issue - just not relevant to the bill mentioned in the OP, though the thread seems to have completely digressed to bullying. Shame really because some very pertinent points were made before this free-fall!

I would say that cyber bullying and 'real life' bullying (whether in school, at the workplace, in care homes, domestically, etc.) could each warrant their own thread as they are two very different things tackled in two very different ways.

Yes - one needs to properly research what cyber/'real life' bullying is, how it happens, the impact (negative or positive), what is already in place to identify the bullying and to 'take care' of it (from the 'victim' dealing with it him/herself to prosecution). There are firmly established protocols for this (within the law, the workplace, the school, on the internet etc.) - debatable whether they are known, cared to be followed, etc. Certainly the school I worked in had very clear procedures empowering the person being bullied and his/her parents if needed. Start a thread that is rational and informed - no soapbox, no pathos, no histrionics (though somehow, I think that may be wishful thinking - unfortunately )

Again - a thought. Not really part of this 'debate' (which only has a few more hours of shelf life, hopefully).

pandora wrote:

redrock wrote:

Maybe said in some kind of jest but it may not be a bad idea as bullying is an important issue - just not relevant to the bill mentioned in the OP, though the thread seems to have completely digressed to bullying. Shame really because some very pertinent points were made before this free-fall!

I would say that cyber bullying and 'real life' bullying (whether in school, at the workplace, in care homes, domestically, etc.) could each warrant their own thread as they are two very different things tackled in two very different ways.

Yes - one needs to properly research what cyber/'real life' bullying is, how it happens, the impact (negative or positive), what is already in place to identify the bullying and to 'take care' of it (from the 'victim' dealing with it him/herself to prosecution). There are firmly established protocols for this (within the law, the workplace, the school, on the internet etc.) - debatable whether they are known, cared to be followed, etc. Certainly the school I worked in had very clear procedures empowering the person being bullied and his/her parents if needed. Start a thread that is rational and informed - no soapbox, no pathos, no histrionics (though somehow, I think that may be wishful thinking - unfortunately )

Again - a thought. Not really part of this 'debate' (which only has a few more hours of shelf life, hopefully).

Do we think one person runs this debate?

If there are other features to this bill then debate them :fp:

The proposal is about cyber bullying why it was created by the creator.
You can see that in many articles on line.
The OP's article wishes to paint a different light then many I read
but it is clear the wishes that were intended in the bill.
The leaning articles can be read both ways but it is all about cyber bullying....

Ah politics gotta love the set backs it causes for solving real life suffering.

and it is all about...
Stop the Hate.

Also important to stop the blind faith.

redrock wrote:

g under p wrote:

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.

Maybe said in some kind of jest but it may not be a bad idea as bullying is an important issue - just not relevant to the bill mentioned in the OP, though the thread seems to have completely digressed to bullying. Shame really because some very pertinent points were made before this free-fall!

I would say that cyber bullying and 'real life' bullying (whether in school, at the workplace, in care homes, domestically, etc.) could each warrant their own thread as they are two very different things tackled in two very different ways.

Yes - one needs to properly research what cyber/'real life' bullying is, how it happens, the impact (negative or positive), what is already in place to identify the bullying and to 'take care' of it (from the 'victim' dealing with it him/herself to prosecution). There are firmly established protocols for this (within the law, the workplace, the school, on the internet etc.) - debatable whether they are known, cared to be followed, etc. Certainly the school I worked in had very clear procedures empowering the person being bullied and his/her parents if needed. Start a thread that is rational and informed - no soapbox, no pathos, no histrionics (though somehow, I think that may be wishful thinking - unfortunately )

Again - a thought. Not really part of this 'debate' (which only has a few more hours of shelf life, hopefully).

Agree 100%. This bullying stuff is way off the track of what this thread was supposed To be about. We could just ignore the constant redirect ions to the bullying issue though, and carry on the convo about this legislation and what it's really about, because as a certain someone said, that same someone can't govern the thread unless we let her ... I see it as an attack on people and the press who want to expose politicians for what they really are. And these politicians would rather save their own egos than maintain the integrity of our rghts to express ourselves without recrimination. And that is horrendous to me.