Trolling. You're banned for 2 years. From society, not the forums!

[sanabas]

I'm well-aware of Megan Meier, as I am of people who killed themselves after being bullied at my school. If they can't handle a little bullying, or come up with a constructive way of ending it - here's an idea, if you're being teased on MySpace, stop going to MySpace - then they're obviously weak-minded. Unless they have some sort of medical disorder such as clinical depression, in which case their families should notice t and take them to a doctor.

Which wiki says her family was doing.

The idea of 'if you're being teased in venue x, stop going to venue x' makes some sense in theory, but doesn't always work that well in practice. Especially if the logical endpoint of withdrawing from everywhere you encounter teasing is to become a hermit and hide in your room.

The idea of seeing a doctor in order to prevent suicides from happening is a good one in theory too, but every single person I've known personally that committed suicide were involved with with seeing doctors and/or mental health professionals, so it doesn't always work so well in practice.

 

[Cutlass]

If this were enacted, I wonder if website hosts would be required to take all reasonable steps to prevent such cyber-bullying, or else they could be considered negligent / an accomplice? I guess we better step-up our moderating!

I think like the other internet censorship proposals, this one would run into simply being unenforceable due to scope and scale.

 

[GoodGame]

If this were enacted, I wonder if website hosts would be required to take all reasonable steps to prevent such cyber-bullying, or else they could be considered negligent / an accomplice? I guess we better step-up our moderating!

I'm wondering what the impact on an American-hosted, international forum like CFC would be though, since not all users are based in the same jurisdiction.

Personally I think the concept of this law is bunk, and I hope prosecution attempts get held up trying to prove 'intent' to do malice; And I hope Scalia tears it to shreds if it shows up before him. I mean, we already know that sarcasm in near impossible to detect on the internet, then why prosecute people because some persons are 'sensitive' to what they read?????? Will our taglines be legal disclaimers----'posted with no intent to make you cry, sensitive reader' ?

 

[Whomp]

I wonder if the power of the "ignore" button will become more important in the future. Isn't that what people being bullied use in real life?

 

[Fifty]

If they can't handle a little bullying, or come up with a constructive way of ending it - here's an idea, if you're being teased on MySpace, stop going to MySpace - then they're obviously weak-minded.

Why do people deserve to die for being weak-minded? Oh nevermind I get it, you're an internet tough guy. I bet you think people who are "weak" and "illogical" are just "hurting evolution" by being kept alive. Wow, you're so impressive. I wish I could be as cold and logical and heartless and apathetic as you.

What you are saying is tantamount to saying that you deserved to go to prison. After all, if you can't beat a false accusation than you are obviously weak and deserve to be thrown in jail.

It feels weird saying this because I'm pretty sure I'm younger than you, but GROW UP. Your views are false, morally reprehensible, and really immature.

 

[Narz]

Why do people deserve to die for being weak-minded? Oh nevermind I get it, you're an internet tough guy. I bet you think people who are "weak" and "illogical" are just "hurting evolution" by being kept alive. Wow, you're so impressive. I wish I could be as cold and logical and heartless and apathetic as you.

What you are saying is tantamount to saying that you deserved to go to prison. After all, if you can't beat a false accusation than you are obviously weak and deserve to be thrown in jail.

It feels weird saying this because I'm pretty sure I'm younger than you, but GROW UP. Your views are false, morally reprehensible, and really immature.

Who is more morally reprehensible, the one who justifies vicious trolling or the one who actively engages in it (and encourages other to do so)?

 

[EnglishEdward]

There is an old axim that says that "hard cases make bad law".

I.e. Legislators should not rush into action because of one unfortunate circumstance

The law starts off in its preamble with a justification to protect minors.

But the actual definition below is much more far reaching and is not limited to minors or real even human persons.

Sec. 881. Cyberbullying

`(a) Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Under this law, McDonalds or MicroSoft could sue their persistent critics.

The Presidents of Iran or North Korea could sue their critics.

I am very tempted to tell certain fraudulent bankers what they should do.

Could one get two years in jail for rubbishing Bart Simpson?

This law will protect the criminal and powerful who can pay for lawyers.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Is it really that hard to put certain people on Ignore?

Oh, by the way, nice thread tag.

 

[Formaldehyde]

real stalking or harassment then it should be treated the same.

I agree. And what's even worse is that this is a federal law, so the criminal case doesn't have to be as rigorous as it does in state prosecutions.

There is an old axim that says that "hard cases make bad law".

Yep. Like virtually all 'named' legislation, this one is just another example of how bad these type of laws can really be.

Here's hoping it doesn't pass.

 

[Rashiminos]

People who commit suicide in lieu of more appropriate measures for dealing with harassment (I'm sure MySpace provides ample help in these matters) do not deserve to have draconian laws named after them, and should be ridiculed for their stupidity, if anything.

 

[JollyRoger]

And I hope Scalia tears it to shreds if it shows up before him.

Not even Scalia is that much of an activist. It is a traditionally worded statute with intent and act requirements. If Scalia does his job correctly, he wouldn't second guess Congress on the law on this one and he would likely defer to the District Court or jury on the facts.

 

[Earthling]

Good luck enforcing it without violating privacy laws!

Since when did getting a restraining order violate privacy laws? That's the type of thing I'm referring to.

 

[RalofTyr]

The best defense against cyber bullying is, "Words don't hurt" and I'm rubber, you're glue, anything you say bounces off of me and sticks on to you".

There should be defenses against cyberbullying children, that don't know any better, however, that should be the responsibility of their parents, not the US government. If your kid's crying when she's on the internet, then, maybe there's a problem?

Any cyberbullying case is a tort and one can sue in court over it. It happened to Yahoo!'s forums.

 

[Bill3000]

Since when did getting a restraining order violate privacy laws? That's the type of thing I'm referring to.

Since you have to identify the person you want to give a restraining order to.

 

[Narz]

You give up your right to (a certain degree of) privacy when you break the law.

 

[Fifty]

Who is more morally reprehensible, the one who justifies vicious trolling or the one who actively engages in it (and encourages other to do so)?

Listen, I know you have this whole "I'm gonna disagree with everything fifty says to show how independent and unaffected by him I am" thing going for you, and if its something that gives you self-esteem or whatever that's fine... I really don't mind. But really, do you want to ally yourself with the side of the person claiming that this girl deserved to die?

 

[DBear]

The jerkasses who did this to Megan have more or less been run out of the state. That looks like enough punishment right there. This law looks like the camel's nose in the tent for government control of the internet :tinfoilhat:

 

[Narz]

Listen, I know you have this whole "I'm gonna disagree with everything fifty says to show how independent and unaffected by him I am" thing going for you, and if its something that gives you self-esteem or whatever that's fine...

I know you have this whole "I can simplify everyone's personality & motivations into a attempted funny sentence" thing going but it's getting old. Don't read to much into my response or get to feeling too special (I reply to lots of people's posts ), I just call out people who are blatant hypocrites. It's a small subforum & there is a fair amount of overlap in the types of threads you & I might post. But if it gives you satisfaction imagining I think about you & track you feel free to continue to do so. If you give me $20 I'll even make another video about you.

But really, do you want to ally yourself with the side of the person claiming that this girl deserved to die?

I'm not allying myself with anyone. My point was that the person who's actually doing the abusing is morally worse than the person talking about "natural selection".

Also, I'm fairly certain Sharwood was being at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek about his comment. Not everyone's humor consists of "Yo, this is me being funny. Let me add a second funny sentence just so you know for sure. ".

 

[Tycoon101]

I know you have this whole "I can simplify everyone's personality & motivations into a attempted funny sentence" thing going but it's getting old. Don't read to much into my response or get to feeling too special (I reply to lots of people's posts ), I just call out people who are blatant hypocrites. It's a small subforum & there is a fair amount of overlap in the types of threads you & I might post. But if it gives you satisfaction imagining I think about you & track you feel free to continue to do so. If you give me $20 I'll even make another video about you.

Calling a monster out on his immoral and reprehensible tendencies, then calling another fellow out for his imbecilic words hardly makes one a "hypocrite".

I'm not allying myself with anyone. My point was that the person who's actually doing the abusing is morally worse than the person talking about "natural selection".

That point is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Why not hit the "ignore" button if you are offended by his "abuse"?

Also, I'm fairly certain Sharwood was being at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek about his comment. Not everyone's humor consists of "Yo, this is me being funny. Let me add a second funny sentence just so you know for sure. ".

And you found even a drop of ironic humor in those words?

 

[Narz]

Calling a monster out on his immoral and reprehensible tendencies, then calling another fellow out for his imbecilic words hardly makes one a "hypocrite".

Imbecilic, , what's that your word of the day?

Monster? Sharwood? I don't think so. Don't be a dramaqueen. If you've ever read the Darwin Awards or gloated at someone else's misfortune (due to their "inferiority") you're a monster yourself.

In the off chance you're not being deliberately thick & genuinely don't understand my use of the word hypocrite you might recall certain posters making a mission to harass & cause emotional harm to other posters. I even got a Private Message from this fellow apologizing for being an unnecessary jerk all these years, "I'm really a good person!", .

In my eyes, there is little to no difference between a cruel person who's assaults lead to a death & one who's verbal assaults fail to cause death, their intention is the same. Thus any talk of morality by such a person is hypocritical. You might as well get a lecture on respecting women from Mike Tyson.

That point is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Why not hit the "ignore" button if you are offended by his "abuse"?

Because I must speak up against bullies everywhere, lest they win. I live not only for myself, it is not noble to hide from or try to block out everything that displeases you.

Besides, most of his postings are harmless & the ignore feature disrupts the flow of threads, anyone worth ignoring is persistent enough to get quoted by others which defeats the whole purpose.