BF2S Forums privacy vs free speech!

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

I am - I have points and examples. What have you given? Nothing - just your foolhardy opinion based on no substance whatsoever.

I haven't dismissed it. I've provided clear reasons why you are talking rubbish, with clear examples illustrating just how badly such laws work.

What have you done to show that they do work or to address the points raised?

Lets stick to one issue, keep it nice and simple for you, Trafigura - how are the privacy laws used by this company in any way in the public interest?

So lets start over, explain where you think you have the right to harass, bully and mentally abuse another under the protection of free speech? Explain where you got the notion that free speech means you divulge another persons private information, just because it might be true or your own amusement or vengeance?

No starting over.

Answer the question. Stop dancing around the issue.

My point is very simple. It is that: in practice privacy laws do more harm than good and are therefore a bad thing. That is my only point. Stop putting words in my mouth.

So, back to my question that you haven't answered:

Trafigura - how are the privacy laws used by this company in any way in the public interest?

The OP has a douche bag harassing, embarrassing, bullying, and abusing another person for his own enjoyment and vengeance with information that is not the publics right to know nor in the publics best interest to know. YOu defend his " right" to do it under free speech.

Where did you get the idea that free speech is protecting your supposed right to abuse another person verbally? THAT is the question

Last edited by lowing (2011-06-15 03:42:34)

Bertster7 wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's the whole point. Laws have to be clear cut or they go horribly wrong.

You might say it's worlds apart - and in impact, absolutely, that is the case. However, the two things are essentially the same, both are revealing a point about another persons medical history to a third party. Nobody likes stupid laws like these, nobody but lawyers....

Laws do have shades of grey to them, and it would be naive to believe otherwise.
It isn't against the law to talk about a fellow colleague's whereabouts.
There is a case for libelliousness when someone posts a billboard about their ex girlfriend in this instance.

Sensible laws don't. All the laws the work well are those that are clear cut - either you murdered someone, or you didn't for example.

No there isn't. Not if it's true. That's not what libel means. It's a nice clear cut law, either the thing you said about someone is true and you can prove that in court, or it's false - in which case you'll have to retract it and pay them loads of money.


Also, libelliousness is not a word.

Again, for the millionth time, the woman's friends claim she had a miscarriage.

We don't know whether this is true or not, but it provides her with a case if this is indeed true. 

Also, I just made the word up. I can do that you know

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-06-15 01:29:57)

Jaekus wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Laws do have shades of grey to them, and it would be naive to believe otherwise.
It isn't against the law to talk about a fellow colleague's whereabouts.
There is a case for libelliousness when someone posts a billboard about their ex girlfriend in this instance.

Sensible laws don't. All the laws the work well are those that are clear cut - either you murdered someone, or you didn't for example.

No there isn't. Not if it's true. That's not what libel means. It's a nice clear cut law, either the thing you said about someone is true and you can prove that in court, or it's false - in which case you'll have to retract it and pay them loads of money.


Also, libelliousness is not a word.

Again, for the millionth time, the woman's friends claim she had a miscarriage.

We don't know whether this is true or not, but it provides her with a case if this is indeed true. 

Also, I just made the word up. I can do that you know

Absolutely - and if it's not true then there is a very good case against him. It's something that would be very easy to prove in court, which would be a good thing, because he's clearly not a nice guy and it would be nice for him to get screwed over in some way because of this - but not at the expense of society in general by implementing stupid laws that don't work.

Bertster7 wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Sensible laws don't. All the laws the work well are those that are clear cut - either you murdered someone, or you didn't for example.

No there isn't. Not if it's true. That's not what libel means. It's a nice clear cut law, either the thing you said about someone is true and you can prove that in court, or it's false - in which case you'll have to retract it and pay them loads of money.


Also, libelliousness is not a word.

Again, for the millionth time, the woman's friends claim she had a miscarriage.

We don't know whether this is true or not, but it provides her with a case if this is indeed true. 

Also, I just made the word up. I can do that you know

Absolutely - and if it's not true then there is a very good case against him. It's something that would be very easy to prove in court, which would be a good thing, because he's clearly not a nice guy and it would be nice for him to get screwed over in some way because of this - but not at the expense of society in general by implementing stupid laws that don't work.

I agree until the very last point.
I don't believe someone should be allowed to post a billboard about someone in this way. I think it's an abuse of free speech, not an example.

The argument is once you start restricting freedom in one way it starts to open (or close, rather) the door for everyone else. It sets a precedent that can be cited in the future.

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

The OP has a douche bag harassing, embarrassing, bullying, and abusing another person for his own enjoyment and vengeance with information that is not the publics right to know nor in the publics best interest to know. YOu defend his " right" to do it under free speech.

Where did you get the idea that free speech is protecting your supposed right to abuse another person verbally? THAT is the question

As I've said previously, stop putting words in my mouth and answer the question.

If you can't answer the question and don't have any way of refuting my point that privacy laws cause more harm than good, then you have no case and there is nothing to debate here.

Trafigura - how are the privacy laws used by this company in any way in the public interest?

I don't give a shit about Trafigura. The OP is about an individual, trying to harass embarrass, intimidate, bully and mentally abuse another private citizen publicly.
You think he has the right to do this, now again, where did you get the idea that free speech protects someone to bully, intimidate, harass, mentally abuse a private citizen. WOuld love to hear how protecting a private citizen from these sorts of things makes a society worse and not better, anyway, ff you can not see the difference between freedom to dissent and harassing bullying mentally abusing another individual for no reason than your own enjoyment or vengeance I agree we have nothing to discuss.

Answer the question. Address the point I have raised about how badly privacy laws work or all the points you are making are entirely redundant.

It's not just Trafigura, that's just one example of abuse of privacy laws. There are plenty of others.

Can't you understand that a law that could be fairly applied in some circumstances could be wide open to abuse in others? It's a pretty simple concept, even for you? Clearly some sort of legal protection of privacy would be nice in instances such as the one in the OP - but you can't have it both ways. Since the laws have been shown to be rubbish in many cases and are widely considered to cause more problems than they solve, then having them in place is a bad idea.

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

As I've said previously, stop putting words in my mouth and answer the question.

If you can't answer the question and don't have any way of refuting my point that privacy laws cause more harm than good, then you have no case and there is nothing to debate here.

Trafigura - how are the privacy laws used by this company in any way in the public interest?

I don't give a shit about Trafigura. The OP is about an individual, trying to harass embarrass, intimidate, bully and mentally abuse another private citizen publicly.
You think he has the right to do this, now again, where did you get the idea that free speech protects someone to bully, intimidate, harass, mentally abuse a private citizen. WOuld love to hear how protecting a private citizen from these sorts of things makes a society worse and not better, anyway, ff you can not see the difference between freedom to dissent and harassing bullying mentally abusing another individual for no reason than your own enjoyment or vengeance I agree we have nothing to discuss.

Answer the question. Address the point I have raised about how badly privacy laws work or all the points you are making are entirely redundant.

It's not just Trafigura, that's just one example of abuse of privacy laws. There are plenty of others.

Can't you understand that a law that could be fairly applied in some circumstances could be wide open to abuse in others? It's a pretty simple concept, even for you? Clearly some sort of legal protection of privacy would be nice in instances such as the one in the OP - but you can't have it both ways. Since the laws have been shown to be rubbish in many cases and are widely considered to cause more problems than they solve, then having them in place is a bad idea.

I disagree, freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom. It never was meant to be. It is freedom to publicly dissent against the govt. Still, there are laws against inciting a riot.

Freedom of speech does not imply nor was its intent to be, a freedom to bully or abuse another person for your personal enjoyment, and I do not see how curtailing such action is detrimental to society. In fact, not allowing private citizens the "freedom" or "right" to publicly defame each other for fun or vengeance is a positive for society.

There would only be a problem if you considered the right to public dissent and a right to harass, bully, mentally abuse and defame another person for your own enjoyment and vengeance as the same thing. and apparently you do. Contrary to what ever the hell it is you believe, you do not have the right to whatever you want where ever you want and whenever you want.

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

I don't give a shit about Trafigura. The OP is about an individual, trying to harass embarrass, intimidate, bully and mentally abuse another private citizen publicly.
You think he has the right to do this, now again, where did you get the idea that free speech protects someone to bully, intimidate, harass, mentally abuse a private citizen. WOuld love to hear how protecting a private citizen from these sorts of things makes a society worse and not better, anyway, ff you can not see the difference between freedom to dissent and harassing bullying mentally abusing another individual for no reason than your own enjoyment or vengeance I agree we have nothing to discuss.

Answer the question. Address the point I have raised about how badly privacy laws work or all the points you are making are entirely redundant.

It's not just Trafigura, that's just one example of abuse of privacy laws. There are plenty of others.

Can't you understand that a law that could be fairly applied in some circumstances could be wide open to abuse in others? It's a pretty simple concept, even for you? Clearly some sort of legal protection of privacy would be nice in instances such as the one in the OP - but you can't have it both ways. Since the laws have been shown to be rubbish in many cases and are widely considered to cause more problems than they solve, then having them in place is a bad idea.

I disagree, freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom. It never was meant to be. It is freedom to publicly dissent against the govt. Still, there are laws against inciting a riot.

Where did I say anything about that? You're responding to points I simply haven't made. Putting words in my mouth again.

lowing wrote:

Freedom of speech does not imply nor was its intent to be, a freedom to bully or abuse another person for your personal enjoyment, and I do not see how curtailing such action is detrimental to society. In fact, not allowing private citizens the "freedom" or "right" to publicly defame each other for fun or vengeance is a positive for society.

Curtailing such action is not detrimental to society. What is detrimental to society is the impact these laws can have in cases other than those and the difficulty in legal distinctions between instances like the one in the OP and cases like the ones I have presented as examples.

This is the third time I've explained exactly this point. Maybe this time you'll actually take it in.

lowing wrote:

There would only be a problem if you considered the right to public dissent and a right to harass, bully, mentally abuse and defame another person for your own enjoyment and vengeance as the same thing. and apparently you do. Contrary to what ever the hell it is you believe, you do not have the right to whatever you want where ever you want and whenever you want.

Except for the FACT that isn't the case at all. I've shown that there are problems with such laws. Until you have addressed the problems with these laws, then you have no case whatsoever.

Back to the question you consistently refuse to answer:

Trafigura - how are the privacy laws used by this company in any way in the public interest?

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Answer the question. Address the point I have raised about how badly privacy laws work or all the points you are making are entirely redundant.

It's not just Trafigura, that's just one example of abuse of privacy laws. There are plenty of others.

Can't you understand that a law that could be fairly applied in some circumstances could be wide open to abuse in others? It's a pretty simple concept, even for you? Clearly some sort of legal protection of privacy would be nice in instances such as the one in the OP - but you can't have it both ways. Since the laws have been shown to be rubbish in many cases and are widely considered to cause more problems than they solve, then having them in place is a bad idea.

I disagree, freedom of speech is not an absolute freedom. It never was meant to be. It is freedom to publicly dissent against the govt. Still, there are laws against inciting a riot.

Where did I say anything about that? You're responding to points I simply haven't made. Putting words in my mouth again.

lowing wrote:

Freedom of speech does not imply nor was its intent to be, a freedom to bully or abuse another person for your personal enjoyment, and I do not see how curtailing such action is detrimental to society. In fact, not allowing private citizens the "freedom" or "right" to publicly defame each other for fun or vengeance is a positive for society.

Curtailing such action is not detrimental to society. What is detrimental to society is the impact these laws can have in cases other than those and the difficulty in legal distinctions between instances like the one in the OP and cases like the ones I have presented as examples.

This is the third time I've explained exactly this point. Maybe this time you'll actually take it in.

lowing wrote:

There would only be a problem if you considered the right to public dissent and a right to harass, bully, mentally abuse and defame another person for your own enjoyment and vengeance as the same thing. and apparently you do. Contrary to what ever the hell it is you believe, you do not have the right to whatever you want where ever you want and whenever you want.

Except for the FACT that isn't the case at all. I've shown that there are problems with such laws. Until you have addressed the problems with these laws, then you have no case whatsoever.

Back to the question you consistently refuse to answer:

Trafigura - how are the privacy laws used by this company in any way in the public interest?

yeah I understand that, but then again which laws are in existence that can't be wide open to abuse in different circumstances? Hell even murder vs self defense is open to abuse. That does not mean the law against murder and for self defense should not in good faith exist in society.

Same with free speech and privacy laws. They should be there to protect true free speech and to protect attempts at malicious and vengeful harassment and bullying of private citizens.

i'm a private citizen. i guess forums give you a place to hypocratize - spouting the ideals you hold dear, and violating them with abandon, hiding behind anonymity, am i right?

lowing wrote:

yes for me to divulge your private life for no other reason than to bully or harass you, it should result in consequences to me.

i had posted almost a year and a half ago that 20+ years prior, i overdosed on LSD - you've been ruthless about taking it out of context (much like the asshole in the OP) and even fabricated herion use by me, on this forum, without any facts to back it up.

fuck off, you and the the extra set of lips that you speak out of from the side of your neck.

13urnzz wrote:

lowing wrote:

yes for me to divulge your private life for no other reason than to bully or harass you, it should result in consequences to me.

i had posted almost a year and a half ago that 20+ years prior, i overdosed on LSD - you've been ruthless about taking it out of context (much like the asshole in the OP) and even fabricated herion use by me, on this forum, without any facts to back it up.

fuck off, you and the the extra set of lips that you speak out of from the side of your neck.

It was LSD and not heroin? Boy do I feel dumb.

Hey, your relentless and unwarranted taunting of me in every corner of this forum,even in conversations I am not a part of, renders me unapologetic. I ignored your attacks for quite awhile before I said anything, you kept up the taunts regardless.  If you do not like the abuse, then do not dish it out.

Last edited by lowing (2011-06-16 18:19:16)

you have no credibility, and if Gibson had not crashed and taken all the PM's with it, i would splatter that shit in the light of day, so others could see you for the troll you are.