DescentBB

.....and maybe everyone else with a strong opinion. Think Arizona is going to far or being overly broad with this one? When is speech "hate speech" or "bullying" and at what point should what you say on the net be deemed illegal?

http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in ... 47052.html

jesus, really?

okay, terrify, intimdate, and threaten is one thing, but it's quite another to include 'harass, annoy or offend' in the bill.

what happened to just taking your lumps like a human being, and firing back in kind? Deal with them, instead of hiding behind some retarded law that bans someone from giving you a hard time. Razz the crap out of them. Or back where I came from, a swift punch in the face will set things right.

and anti-bullying? yeah seems to me they're the ones being the bullies -- trying to use the law to coerce people into 'playing nice'

Ferno, there's a ghost in your closet. You have a butt for a face. I want to call you inferno: light yourself on fire. If not let me know if there's something you own I can light on fire.


inserting profanity: ★■◆●
suggesting lwed or lascivious acts: let's type boobs on google images.

It is unlawful for any person, with intent to terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend, to use ANY ELECTRONIC OR DIGITAL DEVICE and use any obscene, lewd or profane language or suggest any lewd or lascivious act, or threaten to inflict physical harm to the person or property of any person.

Work here is done.

Yeah, I read about this. Interestingly enough this is one internet censorship bill that even the RIAA/MPAA won't back:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201204 ... t-it.shtml

Isaac wrote:Ferno, there's a ghost in your closet. You have a butt for a face. I want to call you inferno: light yourself on fire. If not let me know if there's something you own I can light on fire.

come on dude, if you're gonna razz someone, put some actual effort into it.

Ferno wrote:

Isaac wrote:Ferno, there's a ghost in your closet. You have a butt for a face. I want to call you inferno: light yourself on fire. If not let me know if there's something you own I can light on fire.

come on dude, if you're gonna razz someone, put some actual effort into it.

I've already been banned off one forum today. Didn't want to risk a second ban.

Maybe boasting should be added to the list.

In all seriousness, is there something in Arizona's drinking water or maybe they're smoking a little to much peyote? They've passed more crazy laws during the last few years since the Republicans took over. Why bother wasting the time even putting this thing forth when the wording is clearly too far reaching, or are they just testing the waters to see how far they can go with it?

i think we have somethign like this in australia, less than a year ago (iirc) some kid who was griefing a facebook RIP tribute page was CHARGED
!!!
(abiet it may have been a charge relating to the graphic pictures he was posting, i can't remember)

nationalism doesn't pay, everywhere sucks

What if my religion dictates that I should flame people on the internet?

snoopy wrote:What if my religion dictates that I should flame people on the internet?

Ferno would be, like, the Jesus of this religion.

(A) Discuss the censorship bill (belongs in E&C)
(B) Trolling/flames for fun (belongs in NHB)

Pick one.

Foil is Morphius: Red pill or Blue pill!?

snoopy wrote:What if my religion dictates that I should flame people on the internet?

I say this to try to draw out the idea that this is a slippery slope, and I fear that the day is coming that I'll be legally persecuted for expressing beliefs while the second amendment remains in place, at least in name.

The value of a given person, or their personality/options/beliefs/etc. is most definitely a philosophical question that is answered differently by different religions. There certainly isn't a consensus on the matter.

**If you set aside the intent side of things** - I don't see how this law isn't simply an attempt to legislate equal value of people/options/beliefs - which is both illegal and hypocritical (it is in itself setting up "equality believing" religions above "non-equality believing" ones.)

If you bring back the intent side of things: okay, now we can talk about the limitations (and mis-use) and human communication. The author forms an idea, translates it into words, the receiver gets the words, the receiver translates the words into ideas. I the process, changes inevitably happen - both purposely and accidentally. So, now, if the law is getting at author intent - there are always going to be differences between the true intent, and the conclusion that the judge draws... and the conclusion will always be subjective, at least at some level. (I'll throw in the caveat that most of the time it probably won't fall far from the mark.) What scares me more is the case of misinterpretation on the receiver's part. If the judge tends to lean more toward applying the law from the receiver's interpretation, then the author is forced to err far on the side of "political correctness" for fear of being prosecuted for saying something that could be interpreted as controversial.

That's the trouble with "Political Correctness". The definition shifts constantly. What's inflammatory or defaming to someone 20 years ago might be OK by today's standards. How do you create a law that covers something that shifts paradigm so often people can't keep up with the definition. Speech is especially fluid over time and is often defined by people's perceptions.

Look at TV. Cable is a vast lawless wasteland that is essentially the Wild West. Over-the-air TV still is regulated by the FCC in what speech is proper and what types of violence or sexual situations can be aired. But so many people have cable TV and don't bother to censor what they turn on, what difference does it make to regulate the airwaves? Only because one is free and one is paid for, that makes a difference? Seems weird. If you don't like what you see, turn it off.

Isaac wrote: Foil is Morphius: Red pill or Blue pill!?

one pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small, and the ones that Mother gives you......


sorry, I digress.

tunnelcat wrote:That's the trouble with "Political Correctness". The definition shifts constantly. What's inflammatory or defaming to someone 20 years ago might be OK by today's standards. How do you create a law that covers something that shifts paradigm so often people can't keep up with the definition. Speech is especially fluid over time and is often defined by people's perceptions.

Look at TV. Cable is a vast lawless wasteland that is essentially the Wild West. Over-the-air TV still is regulated by the FCC in what speech is proper and what types of violence or sexual situations can be aired. But so many people have cable TV and don't bother to censor what they turn on, what difference does it make to regulate the airwaves? Only because one is free and one is paid for, that makes a difference? Seems weird. If you don't like what you see, turn it off.

TBH i think that has most to do with a culture (not saying it's good or bad) of corporate accountability. As a society we're now pretty used to being able to blame someone for everything that hurts us, everytime we are offended, everytime we stub our little toe on something.

Lenore Skenazy talks about this a lot, but in relation to how we raise our kids thesedays. We feel that responsible parents must treat all danger as completely unacceptable, all contingency plans must be complied beforehand in triplicate. If a kid is hurt we feel that someone MUST be blamed and that it's ALWAYS avoidable.

So the responsible corporate structure self-censors, at maximum efficiency, because they see it as an unnecessary corporate risk. What if someone complains? "Why not simply avoid all of that risk" they say. It's the proper responsible thing to do for our shareholders.
I have a feeling in hindsight we'll be referring to the 1990s eventually as "the accountable decade".

Roid wrote:I have a feeling in hindsight we'll be referring to the 1990s eventually as "the accountable decade".

I have a feeling we're going forward, not back, and accountability is nowhere in sight.

ST, if foresight were hindsight..........

roid, I think the early part of the 2000's will be called the "decades of excess, greed and apathy".

As for corporations actually responding to the opinions to their shareholders, consumers can have a powerful say in things too, and sometimes maybe rightly so, even though the reason for the move in this case was probably for corporate interests. But there still is accountability out there to be found ST.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/04/ ... nough.html

tunnelcat wrote:But there still is accountability out there to be found ST.

http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/04/ ... nough.html

Nice try. Accountability and liberal activism against businesses that support conservative views are two very different things.

Also I agree with the "stand your ground law", though this is the first time I've heard of it. Any law that requires you to retreat from a threat before you can legally defend yourself is leaning in the wrong direction, IMO.

I’m sure liberals would prefer the “run like a little girl” law.

that was unnessesary

Don’t start with me roid, I decided to leave you alone this time around, so don’t even start.

What I can't believe are some of the real-life scenarios used to try to prove the law is dangerous. I guess the fact that a human-being in civilized society should never be in the position of the aggressor doesn't occur to them. This poor guy went after someone and got shot! ...Gee that's really too bad!

Liberals would prefer that a rigid system of control be placed on every citizen so that they can feel safe without taking responsibility for their own safety. A conservative's preference of freedom makes them dangerous and counter-progressive in the liberal world-view.

The problem as I see it is…there shouldn’t even be a need for this kind of law in the first place…it should just be an accepted fact that people have the right to defend themselves.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Liberals would prefer that a rigid system of control be placed on every citizen so that they can feel safe without taking responsibility for their own safety. A conservative's preference of freedom makes them dangerous and counter-progressive in the liberal world-view.

I have never met anyone who espoused this view. Try again.

Spidey wrote:I’m sure liberals would prefer the “run like a little girl” law.

No, liberals would prefer a safe, law abiding society for everyone, not the wild west where anyone can carry a gun and take someone else's life just for giving them a threatening look or being the wrong skin color in the wrong neighborhood.

We are also NOT trying to take away your guns, despite the false premise that we are. I'm a semi-liberal who is more of an independent and I believe in the right to keep a gun to protect myself if needed, especially as a "girl". But I'd prefer a civil society where the police are the principle defenders of our laws, and that my gun should be used only a last, desperate resort. Yes, we can and should be able to defend ourselves in our own homes or if we are attacked. But no, we shouldn't be able to go out and seek a reason to use that gun just because we want to or feel the need to. Guns in the hands of vigilantes with delusions of police-hood is a dangerous recipe for chaos in the streets. Absolute freedom is absolute chaos.

Don't underestimate liberals. We're not the ones attacking a woman's right to decide who controls their bodies. We're not the ones putting autocrats in communities all over Michigan and subverting democracy in the name of fiscal management. We're not the ones forcing one preferred religion into politics. We're not the ones who want to deregulate the banks so that financial greed and mayhem will happen all over again. We're not the ones that want to keep on blindly using oil and gas, trashing the soil, air and water to do it, and not look further for alternatives that will be needed in the future.

Conservatives may think that liberals are something to loathe and scoff as weak and ineffectual. Think that at your own peril. We are not your "enemy". We'd rather everyone worked together to form a strong nation. But if conservatives want to think of liberals as weaklings and devolve into their "my group is better than your group" think, our nation will eventually sink into chaos, because the enemy you underestimate and marginalize is the one that should most be feared.

Spidey wrote:

roid wrote:

Spidey, outof ★■◆●ing nowhere, wrote:I’m sure liberals would prefer the “run like a little girl” law.

that was unnessesary

Don’t start with me CALL ME OUT ON MY UNNECESSARY ABUSIVE bull★■◆● roid, I decided to leave you alone GET ABUSIVE ABOUT A GROUP YOU BELONG TO this time around, so don’t even start RESPOND.

fixed that last statement for ya. Step off.
You come in with an outof-nowhere insult, and then tell me to not "start"? As if I'M the one hurling insults at YOU? what the...

It was a joke ★■◆●!

And you of all people have no right to talk about insults pointed at a group of people somebody belongs to, you ★■◆●ing hypocrite.

Shall I remind you of your endless diatribe about Conservatives and Christians?

you've got nothin

And there I thought Zuruck and I had a strong love affair.

Top Gun wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Liberals would prefer that a rigid system of control be placed on every citizen so that they can feel safe without taking responsibility for their own safety. A conservative's preference of freedom makes them dangerous and counter-progressive in the liberal world-view.

I have never met anyone who espoused this view. Try again.

I call it like I see it. The fact that no liberal has ever walked up to you and distilled their world-view on guns FYI doesn't make any difference to me. I think I've pretty neatly summed it up. Thinking back on it the part, "without taking responsibility for their own safety" may not have been totally accurate--it's more like the ability to keep oneself safe using our own unsanctioned judgment adds an element of unpredictable danger to society (the question is danger for whom?), so they (foolishly or cowardly or both) would trade away the right/ability to defend ourselves with lethal force.

People like our own TC will say they're not against you owning a gun, and there are plenty of liberals who believe that guns ought to be confined to sporting/hunting, but when it comes to personal defense they really are lacking. I have a right to defend myself in any setting (not just at home), and while I believe that there is a place for putting a man on trial for use of excessive force (use of a gun in a fair fight, for example), a man should never be on trial for determining to defend himself, and the law should not mandate retreat from a threat as a stipulation for being in his right to defend himself.

I used to think I was more liberal minded, but one thing I never understood about liberals was their position on gun control. There will always be crazy delusional vigilantes and dangerous career criminals carrying guns in society, gun control laws only remove them from the hands of honest people.

When I see a posted sign somewhere that says "this area is a gun free zone" I feel less safe going there because I remember incidents in the news where some suicidal lunatic marched on one of those so called "gun free zones" and shot up dozens of people with total impunity for hours.

(These days I sometimes think both extremes, liberal and conservative, are some form of mental illness.)

Krom wrote:I used to think I was more liberal minded, but one thing I never understood about liberals was their position on gun control. There will always be crazy delusional vigilantes and dangerous career criminals carrying guns in society, gun control laws only remove them from the hands of honest people.

When I see a posted sign somewhere that says "this area is a gun free zone" I feel less safe going there because I remember incidents in the news where some suicidal lunatic marched on one of those so called "gun free zones" and shot up dozens of people with total impunity for hours.

Yeah, I don't understand that touchy feely part of of liberalism that wants to keep guns from the law abiding populace, while at the same time not figuring out a way to keep guns out of the hands of psycho criminal types. Guns will always be part of our country's tradition, whether liberals like it or not. We all have to live with that fact and work with it in our laws.

Krom wrote:(These days I sometimes think both extremes, liberal and conservative, are some form of mental illness.)

Well, humans like to belong to groups or tribes, it's in our social nature. It's when one group thinks that they are better, smarter or more superior than another group that things get nasty. Both liberals and conservatives are guilty of it and right now, our country is split into 2 very partisan groups that don't want to deal with one another. A sad commentary on our great country.

A side question to Spidey on guns and "stand your ground" laws. There is presently a white serial killer going around Tulsa OK shooting black people at random. Should all black people in Tulsa be able to carry a gun and shoot someone that drives up to them who is white and looks like a threat? I ask this because this white guy is driving up to black people in their yards in a white SUV, asking seemingly innocuous questions, then opening fire with they turn their backs on the driver. So do you want a bunch of scared black people arming themselves with guns and shooting at white people that they deem a threat?

No, but proper precautions are in order, when someone with a known MO is operating in your area.

They got them already

http://www.therecord.com/news/world/art ... rred-fears

I think there is something of a line from having a definitive right to defend yourself, which I'm all for, and taking the concept of "stand your ground" to its limit. In my view, if someone breaks into your house with the intent to harm you or steal your property, they've forfeit their own safety by doing so, and all bets are off...if a confrontation occurs, and the homeowner happens to be armed, then it's on the person doing the breaking and entering if the worst should happen. However, if you're in that same situation, and just the sight of a weapon has the intruder trying to get the hell out of there, you should not be able to put a round in his back. The same goes for a situation where you're in a safe place, but then leave it in an attempt to take the law into your own hands.

Spidey wrote:No, but proper precautions are in order, when someone with a known MO is operating in your area.

Perhaps, but when fear is driving people, who's in control then? If someone was driving around my neighborhood randomly shooting people they came up to, I'd be a little spooked and perhaps a little too trigger happy when out working in my yard, if I carried that is.

Glad they got those 2. They look like a couple of losers with a bad attitude. I wonder what drove them to do what they did? Why shoot random innocent people? Start a race war or something? Sounds like Manson wannabes and Helter Skelter.

Top Gun, I have the same opinion. If someone is breaking into my house and they run when confronted, I won't shoot them in the back. If they keep coming at me, they are gonna get shot. If they are on my property and attack me physically and I have some type of weapon, I will also defend myself, even though it's not inside my home, as is the law on using deadly force in Oregon. If they run when confronted, I will not chase after them and I will let the police handle things as they are there to do in a lawful society.

Agreed TG. I was just watching police videos on youtube last night. Incidents where police were being attacked and had to shoot someone, most these cases to the death. 9 out of 10, I couldn't see where the officer had a choice, except the rare one here and there where they shot fleeing suspects. There's just something wrong about popping a cap on someone who is unarmed and just trying to get away.
Now, if you want to talk about police action in other countries, that'[s a whole different animal. I saw some horrendous ★■◆● done in places like Brazil and Africa.