How's about having it be illegal if it can be *very well* proven that what you said made someone off themselves? I'll be damned if I get a fine for calling someone a needle-dicked cock-mongling goat-fucker in TF2.
I would change your 'specifically' (both of them) to 'especially', but otherwise, agreed.Reciprocity wrote:
A person, specifically an adult, should not be knowingly and maliciously coercing or manipulating another person, specifically a minor.
And, I would like to see more details on the law itself - it's not really clear, from article linked to in OP, exactly what it states.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-07-01 22:37:54)
What that woman did was terrible. I read about it some time back, and it actually sickened me that a parent would treat someone's child so callously. That goes far beyond merely lying or offending someone. This was a deliberate attempt to mentally and emotionally destroy a girl who she knew had mental problems.Turquoise wrote:
Again, I'm not disagreeing with you on that, but it's hard to legislate something like this, because she didn't break any laws.ATG wrote:
Adults shouldn't mess with kids heads like that.
She deserves all she's getting.
That woman should be punished.
Fraud? Defamation? Those are all crimes based on lying. Too bad she can't be prosecuted for fraud, since she didn't 'gain' anything from her damaging lies.Turquoise wrote:
It's not illegal to lie to someone or offend them, nor should it be.
Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-07-01 23:22:13)
the law only extends existing anti-harassment legislation to include electronic devices and conversations over the internet, whereas the previous law had stated explicitly that the "harassment" had to be written or via a conventional phone.
So they're simply updating the law to keep up with modern technology. That's not stupid, that's actually a good idea.
And this is not about someone saying "mean things". As has been said already , the case in question featured a deliberate attempt to cause emotional harm to someone that was already in a bad condition. Harassment and bullying are serious issues, and should not be taken lightly.
Anyone who has ever been bullied or harassed knows this.
So they're simply updating the law to keep up with modern technology. That's not stupid, that's actually a good idea.
And this is not about someone saying "mean things". As has been said already , the case in question featured a deliberate attempt to cause emotional harm to someone that was already in a bad condition. Harassment and bullying are serious issues, and should not be taken lightly.
Anyone who has ever been bullied or harassed knows this.
this is a slippery slope here governing what people can say. PC has been placed on us for a good intentioned reason to force us to be more sensitive to others. however, by doing so, it has gone to an extreme, where common sense morals would have been way more effective. just treat others how you wish to be treated, but this is a biblical moral and is so out of fashion nowadays sadly.
whenever govt steps in to limit things like this, it has second and third order effects and we end up paying the price.
i agree with others that it should be considered a malicious damage speech thing. prosecuting it is a very tough thing though since you have to prove that the intent was there to cause harm (in this case sadly death). karma's a bitch though. this lady will get hers...someday.
whenever govt steps in to limit things like this, it has second and third order effects and we end up paying the price.
i agree with others that it should be considered a malicious damage speech thing. prosecuting it is a very tough thing though since you have to prove that the intent was there to cause harm (in this case sadly death). karma's a bitch though. this lady will get hers...someday.
Last edited by CaptainSpaulding71 (2008-07-02 00:46:21)
Self inflicted. Fuck her. Freedom of speech > inability to seek psychological help.
Next time you are in the states, yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater and see if your speech is protected.CameronPoe wrote:
Self inflicted. Fuck her. Freedom of speech > inability to seek psychological help.
In a theatre you aren't in a public place. You are in a private establishment.SenorToenails wrote:
Next time you are in the states, yell 'Fire' in a crowded theater and see if your speech is protected.CameronPoe wrote:
Self inflicted. Fuck her. Freedom of speech > inability to seek psychological help.
So, crimes on private property should not be prosecuted by the state?CameronPoe wrote:
In a theatre you aren't in a public place. You are in a private establishment.
Good luck enforcing that law Missouri.
When it comes down to it, it is a largely unenforceable law. If it stands, I bet it will only be used in the most egregious of cases. Like the case that spurred its creation.Braddock wrote:
Good luck enforcing that law Missouri.
Well, for me...............If you GOTTA lay some blame somewhere, blame the mother of this kid who killed herself.............Where the fuck was she while her daughter was getting lost in a fantasy world of MySpace , when she KNEW she had a social and mental problems in the real world that needed attention.....
Now, people can be mean, and the internet is just another extension of that cruelty that we can inflict on one another, grow a thick skin or stay the hell off the net, if you choose a bullshit fantasy world to live in like MySpace or EverQuest or Galaxies or whatever the fuck over the real world then you are already fucked............You can not blame REAL people for your fantasy world social problems...............................Uhhh except in Missouri apparently
Now, people can be mean, and the internet is just another extension of that cruelty that we can inflict on one another, grow a thick skin or stay the hell off the net, if you choose a bullshit fantasy world to live in like MySpace or EverQuest or Galaxies or whatever the fuck over the real world then you are already fucked............You can not blame REAL people for your fantasy world social problems...............................Uhhh except in Missouri apparently
No, of course they should be prosecuted. You misinterpreted what I said.SenorToenails wrote:
So, crimes on private property should not be prosecuted by the state?CameronPoe wrote:
In a theatre you aren't in a public place. You are in a private establishment.
Channel it up your arse.Channel your anger, young padowan.
Fuck Israel
oh come on, lowing. That girl was the target of a deliberate, carefully planned attack, intent to cause her emotional harm.lowing wrote:
Well, for me...............If you GOTTA lay some blame somewhere, blame the mother of this kid who killed herself.............Where the fuck was she while her daughter was getting lost in a fantasy world of MySpace , when she KNEW she had a social and mental problems in the real world that needed attention.....
Now, people can be mean, and the internet is just another extension of that cruelty that we can inflict on one another, grow a thick skin or stay the hell off the net, if you choose a bullshit fantasy world to live in like MySpace or EverQuest or Galaxies or whatever the fuck over the real world then you are already fucked............You can not blame REAL people for your fantasy world social problems...............................Uhhh except in Missouri apparently
This weren't some kids swearing randomly at each other via MSN.
If the other Mum knew that the girl had emotional problems already, her behaviour can not be justified. Aren't you usuallly the one demanding that people face the consequences of their actions ?
Deliberately targeting and victimising someone you know personally and know to be vulnerable is a bit worse than the usual 'no u' you get online.
Fuck Israel
Yup I am......................Is there something in that article that said this victim was tied up and forced to socialize on MySpace, or any other fantasy life website?B.Schuss wrote:
oh come on, lowing. That girl was the target of a deliberate, carefully planned attack, intent to cause her emotional harm.lowing wrote:
Well, for me...............If you GOTTA lay some blame somewhere, blame the mother of this kid who killed herself.............Where the fuck was she while her daughter was getting lost in a fantasy world of MySpace , when she KNEW she had a social and mental problems in the real world that needed attention.....
Now, people can be mean, and the internet is just another extension of that cruelty that we can inflict on one another, grow a thick skin or stay the hell off the net, if you choose a bullshit fantasy world to live in like MySpace or EverQuest or Galaxies or whatever the fuck over the real world then you are already fucked............You can not blame REAL people for your fantasy world social problems...............................Uhhh except in Missouri apparently
This weren't some kids swearing randomly at each other via MSN.
If the other Mum knew that the girl had emotional problems already, her behaviour can not be justified. Aren't you usuallly the one demanding that people face the consequences of their actions ?
I guess we must now blame Everquest and its creaters for the suicide of that dumb fuck that valued it more than real life.
Yeah, but his previous few posts were ironically humorous.Turquoise wrote:
See... that was a lot more coherent than the previous few posts, and I would agree that the legislation is pretty ridiculous.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
1. Don't let your children use the internet if you don't want to risk this kind of thing happening.
2. If you outlaw this then why not make regular bullying a crime? Shall we create prisons for gangs of mean 10 year olds?
3. I have long had clinical depression and I know what it's like to be bullied and I can't fathom or excuse the ludicrousness of legislating against free speech in a public forum (the internet) in this way. If some passerby says 'Cunt' to you in the street should they be prosecuted? Pffft. It's the same principle.
2. If you outlaw this then why not make regular bullying a crime? Shall we create prisons for gangs of mean 10 year olds?
3. I have long had clinical depression and I know what it's like to be bullied and I can't fathom or excuse the ludicrousness of legislating against free speech in a public forum (the internet) in this way. If some passerby says 'Cunt' to you in the street should they be prosecuted? Pffft. It's the same principle.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-02 03:17:22)
I suppose it could be argued Myspace is effectively a public place and its reasonable to expect to be able to carry on your business free from harassment and threat.Is there something in that article that said this victim was tied up and forced to socialize on MySpace, or any other fantasy life website?
I would reasonably expect not to be harassed or insulted in say a library, cinema or restaurant, I wouldn't expect to have to walk away either to avoid hassle.
It would make interesting case law at least
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-07-02 03:21:07)
Fuck Israel
Yes, because bullying is something we should allow under all circumstances
harassment is already a crime, Cam. Again, we are not talking about the some kids throwing random insults at each other via some social network. This is about serious, planned, intentional harassment, aimed at causing your victim emotional pain, the like of which can already result in restraining orders. The law merely acknowledges the new technologies that can be used to conduct the harassment with.CameronPoe wrote:
1. Don't let your children use the internet if you don't want to risk this kind of thing happening.
2. If you outlaw this then why not make regular bullying a crime? Shall we create prisons for gangs of mean 10 year olds?
3. I have long had clinical depression and I know what it's like to be bullied and I can't fathom or excuse the ludicrousness of legislating against free speech in a public forum (the internet) in this way. If some passerby says 'Cunt' to you in the street should they be prosecuted? Pffft. It's the same principle.
from the article:
"The bill updates state laws against harassment by removing the requirement that the communication be written or over the telephone.
Supporters say the bill now covers harassment from computers, text messages and other electronic devices.
"Social networking sites and technology have opened a new door for criminals and bullies to prey on their victims, especially children," Blunt said. "This new law will ensure that we have the protections and penalties needed to safeguard Missourians from Internet harassment.""
And as Dilbert said, the internet is effectively a public place today. why should the laws that apply in the so-called "Real Life", not apply in the same way on the web ? Why should offensive language, or harassment be tolerated on the web, while they are sanctioned in RL ?
After all, we are talking about real conversations between real people here, aren't we ? Why would you tolerate behaviour on the web, that you would consider unacceptable in RL ? IMHO, there is no difference between the two.
And don't let them out in public if you don't want them molested or killed.CameronPoe wrote:
1. Don't let your children use the internet if you don't want to risk this kind of thing happening.
Hey, we couldn't really simplify the criminal system with this system!
There are, and always have been, limits to free speech, typically related to forseeable harm. In your example if the person yelling cunt knew that it would cause severe emotional harm (or suicide) then they should be prosecuted.CameronPoe wrote:
3. I have long had clinical depression and I know what it's like to be bullied and I can't fathom or excuse the ludicrousness of legislating against free speech in a public forum (the internet) in this way. If some passerby says 'Cunt' to you in the street should they be prosecuted? Pffft. It's the same principle.
Because no children get abducted, molested or killed when out without their parents....ZombieVampire! wrote:
And don't let them out in public if you don't want them molested or killed.CameronPoe wrote:
1. Don't let your children use the internet if you don't want to risk this kind of thing happening.
This is a parental issue.
As to the other point: you would have to prove in a court of law that the perpetrator knew the impact of their comments, which can simply be rebutted with a 'I didn't think she would commit suicide'.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-02 04:02:43)
the difference, Low, and I am pretty sure you know this, is that in this case, a planned, deliberate attack was constructed, aimed at causing the victim emotional harm. MSN was merely the way the harassment was done through. In other words, no one blames MSN, or the web. We blame those who participated on this despicable plan.lowing wrote:
Yup I am......................Is there something in that article that said this victim was tied up and forced to socialize on MySpace, or any other fantasy life website?B.Schuss wrote:
oh come on, lowing. That girl was the target of a deliberate, carefully planned attack, intent to cause her emotional harm.lowing wrote:
Well, for me...............If you GOTTA lay some blame somewhere, blame the mother of this kid who killed herself.............Where the fuck was she while her daughter was getting lost in a fantasy world of MySpace , when she KNEW she had a social and mental problems in the real world that needed attention.....
Now, people can be mean, and the internet is just another extension of that cruelty that we can inflict on one another, grow a thick skin or stay the hell off the net, if you choose a bullshit fantasy world to live in like MySpace or EverQuest or Galaxies or whatever the fuck over the real world then you are already fucked............You can not blame REAL people for your fantasy world social problems...............................Uhhh except in Missouri apparently
This weren't some kids swearing randomly at each other via MSN.
If the other Mum knew that the girl had emotional problems already, her behaviour can not be justified. Aren't you usuallly the one demanding that people face the consequences of their actions ?
I guess we must now blame Everquest and its creaters for the suicide of that dumb fuck that valued it more than real life.
Of course the girl wasn't forced to kill herself. But those who participated were obviously willing and ready to cause their victim harm, albeit emotional one. For that, they should face the consequences.
Wether the harassment was done via MSN, or through "conventional" mean, is irrelevant in that regard.
The law against harassment was already there, it was merely updated to include new technologies. What's the big deal here ?