Only the doctors are bound by that.RDMC wrote:
Things like abortion are medical related and are therefore only to be told to total strangers by the person in him or herself and not by someone who happens to know about it.
Freedom is speech is saying that you are against abortion, not that you're ex girlfriend/wife had one.
Guess so, because I do not view free speech and the mental abuse of another person for your enjoyment as the same damn thing. The 2 or easily separableBertster7 wrote:
You've answered your own question - free speech is tremendously important (for reasons so obvious I will not go into them here). Those things you mentioned are unpleasant inconveniences - very minor.lowing wrote:
Not sure were you think you get the right to embarrass, bully, harass, mentally abuse another person, when clearly that is not the intent of what free speech was meant to accomplish.Bertster7 wrote:
Then you're wrong.
Also, you are clearly unfamiliar with the system of super and hyperinjunctions we have in the UK - that's what happens when privacy laws are taken too far and it's fucking ridiculous.
He probably learned about it when she suddenly wasn't pregnant anymore.Jaekus wrote:
Which then does raise the question of how he knows she had an abortion, assuming the doctor-patient confidentiality was not breached.
Her friends say she had a miscarriage, so from that point of view he is wrong. But then we don't know the facts either.
Typical, stupid, emotive response.lowing wrote:
Guess so, because I do not view free speech and the mental abuse of another person for your enjoyment as the same damn thing. The 2 or easily separableBertster7 wrote:
You've answered your own question - free speech is tremendously important (for reasons so obvious I will not go into them here). Those things you mentioned are unpleasant inconveniences - very minor.lowing wrote:
Not sure were you think you get the right to embarrass, bully, harass, mentally abuse another person, when clearly that is not the intent of what free speech was meant to accomplish.
Also, you are clearly unfamiliar with the system of super and hyperinjunctions we have in the UK - that's what happens when privacy laws are taken too far and it's fucking ridiculous.
It's something they've done that they don't want people to know about. I certainly wouldn't consider it unscrupulous at all, but there are many who would.Jaekus wrote:
Not sure if someone's legal medical history is considered "unscrupulous behaviour".
Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-06-11 06:27:20)
and you consider a woman's ( who is also a private citizen) medical history, in bounds regarding a "sensible legal framework"? What you are advocating is, no one has a recourse or a right to privacy if another so chooses you do not deserve it. I think you are wrong in your opinion.Bertster7 wrote:
Typical, stupid, emotive response.lowing wrote:
Guess so, because I do not view free speech and the mental abuse of another person for your enjoyment as the same damn thing. The 2 or easily separableBertster7 wrote:
You've answered your own question - free speech is tremendously important (for reasons so obvious I will not go into them here). Those things you mentioned are unpleasant inconveniences - very minor.
Also, you are clearly unfamiliar with the system of super and hyperinjunctions we have in the UK - that's what happens when privacy laws are taken too far and it's fucking ridiculous.
The only things ever of any concern in a sensible legal framework are what is true and what is not. If it's true, you can say it about someone - if not, you can't. Simple. Those are the only things of concern to society in general.
Anything else is just pandering to individuals who don't want their unscrupulous behaviour to become public knowledge and what concern is that of to society in general? Fuck all.
The two or not easily separable. That's why there is so much controversy surrounding such laws. How are restrictions on what you can say about something (privacy laws) in any way separable from freedom of speech? Obviously they are not and you are an idiot for suggesting that could be the case.
That's not what I'm saying at all. Privacy laws can only work pre-emptively - once someone knows something, you can't stop them saying it. This is where all the legal nightmares start. I'm all for laws that prevent intrusion into other peoples lives to find these things out in the first place, but once someone knows something, any laws to force them not to mention it just create more problems than they solve.lowing wrote:
and you consider a woman's ( who is also a private citizen) medical history, in bounds regarding a "sensible legal framework"? What you are advocating is, no one has a recourse or a right to privacy if another so chooses you do not deserve it. I think you are wrong in your opinion.Bertster7 wrote:
Typical, stupid, emotive response.lowing wrote:
Guess so, because I do not view free speech and the mental abuse of another person for your enjoyment as the same damn thing. The 2 or easily separable
The only things ever of any concern in a sensible legal framework are what is true and what is not. If it's true, you can say it about someone - if not, you can't. Simple. Those are the only things of concern to society in general.
Anything else is just pandering to individuals who don't want their unscrupulous behaviour to become public knowledge and what concern is that of to society in general? Fuck all.
The two or not easily separable. That's why there is so much controversy surrounding such laws. How are restrictions on what you can say about something (privacy laws) in any way separable from freedom of speech? Obviously they are not and you are an idiot for suggesting that could be the case.
That's the whole point. Laws have to be clear cut or they go horribly wrong.Jaekus wrote:
Nah, I don't buy it. You are taking an innocent example and applying it to a fairly extreme context. Talking to a colleague in the workplace about another fellow colleague's whereabouts is worlds apart from posting a billboard to the world about what is clearly a private and personal matter.
Actually that is what you are saying, you think individuals have some sort of right to harass another, mentally abuse another or verbally bully another. That is not what free speech is meant to protect. Protecting another's right to privacy is more important than whatever right you think you have to abuse, humiliate or harass them for your personal enjoyment or vengeance.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not what I'm saying at all. Privacy laws can only work pre-emptively - once someone knows something, you can't stop them saying it. This is where all the legal nightmares start. I'm all for laws that prevent intrusion into other peoples lives to find these things out in the first place, but once someone knows something, any laws to force them not to mention it just create more problems than they solve.lowing wrote:
and you consider a woman's ( who is also a private citizen) medical history, in bounds regarding a "sensible legal framework"? What you are advocating is, no one has a recourse or a right to privacy if another so chooses you do not deserve it. I think you are wrong in your opinion.Bertster7 wrote:
Typical, stupid, emotive response.
The only things ever of any concern in a sensible legal framework are what is true and what is not. If it's true, you can say it about someone - if not, you can't. Simple. Those are the only things of concern to society in general.
Anything else is just pandering to individuals who don't want their unscrupulous behaviour to become public knowledge and what concern is that of to society in general? Fuck all.
The two or not easily separable. That's why there is so much controversy surrounding such laws. How are restrictions on what you can say about something (privacy laws) in any way separable from freedom of speech? Obviously they are not and you are an idiot for suggesting that could be the case.
It's a case of free speech vs privacy - and free speech is far more important to society as a whole. Privacy laws have actually infringed on Parliamentry process (hyper injunctions) which is getting into very dangerous territory.
You can't just legislate to stop people acting like pricks.
You're clearly an idiot, which is why you don't seem to have any grasp of what I'm saying. Just like usual, everything has gone right over your head and you don't understand what I'm talking about.lowing wrote:
Actually that is what you are saying, you think individuals have some sort of right to harass another, mentally abuse another or verbally bully another. That is not what free speech is meant to protect. Protecting another's right to privacy is more important than whatever right you think you have to abuse, humiliate or harass them for your personal enjoyment or vengeance.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not what I'm saying at all. Privacy laws can only work pre-emptively - once someone knows something, you can't stop them saying it. This is where all the legal nightmares start. I'm all for laws that prevent intrusion into other peoples lives to find these things out in the first place, but once someone knows something, any laws to force them not to mention it just create more problems than they solve.lowing wrote:
and you consider a woman's ( who is also a private citizen) medical history, in bounds regarding a "sensible legal framework"? What you are advocating is, no one has a recourse or a right to privacy if another so chooses you do not deserve it. I think you are wrong in your opinion.
It's a case of free speech vs privacy - and free speech is far more important to society as a whole. Privacy laws have actually infringed on Parliamentry process (hyper injunctions) which is getting into very dangerous territory.
You can't just legislate to stop people acting like pricks.
How do you "retrospectively" protect someone? By punishing those guilty of infringing on another right to life liberty and happiness. Risk of having your own life turned upside down should be a deterrence. If not, roll the dice and see what the outcome is. When you stand a chance of loosing your ass in a court of law, you might think twice about how important it is for you treat another person like the asshole you clearly are.Bertster7 wrote:
You're clearly an idiot, which is why you don't seem to have any grasp of what I'm saying. Just like usual, everything has gone right over your head and you don't understand what I'm talking about.lowing wrote:
Actually that is what you are saying, you think individuals have some sort of right to harass another, mentally abuse another or verbally bully another. That is not what free speech is meant to protect. Protecting another's right to privacy is more important than whatever right you think you have to abuse, humiliate or harass them for your personal enjoyment or vengeance.Bertster7 wrote:
That's not what I'm saying at all. Privacy laws can only work pre-emptively - once someone knows something, you can't stop them saying it. This is where all the legal nightmares start. I'm all for laws that prevent intrusion into other peoples lives to find these things out in the first place, but once someone knows something, any laws to force them not to mention it just create more problems than they solve.
It's a case of free speech vs privacy - and free speech is far more important to society as a whole. Privacy laws have actually infringed on Parliamentry process (hyper injunctions) which is getting into very dangerous territory.
You can't just legislate to stop people acting like pricks.
How do retrospectively applied privacy laws work? Sanctions against the person who brought the information into the public domain. Does that help in any way? No, it just blows the issue out of all proportion and makes it spread far more quickly and creates ridiculous legal situations - which I have already shown numerous examples of. What have you shown? Nothing. You've just presented an example of someone doing something unpleasant and so decided it should be illegal. Just because we find something distasteful is no reason for it to be illegal - especially when it infringes on such crucial rights.
In the US you are lucky, you have freedom of speech, whereas in the UK we don't - freedom of expression they call it, but it's just freedom of speech with even more caveats than you get in the US. Our privacy laws are ridiculous as well and are currently under Parliamentry review because they've caused such controversy and legal nightmares. You don't understand what you've got and you're stupid enough to be complaining about it.
Laws do have shades of grey to them, and it would be naive to believe otherwise.Bertster7 wrote:
That's the whole point. Laws have to be clear cut or they go horribly wrong.Jaekus wrote:
Nah, I don't buy it. You are taking an innocent example and applying it to a fairly extreme context. Talking to a colleague in the workplace about another fellow colleague's whereabouts is worlds apart from posting a billboard to the world about what is clearly a private and personal matter.
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....
Well done. You've managed not to address a single point and still haven't referred to the examples given of this stuff not working.lowing wrote:
How do you "retrospectively" protect someone? By punishing those guilty of infringing on another right to life liberty and happiness. Risk of having your own life turned upside down should be a deterrence. If not, roll the dice and see what the outcome is. When you stand a chance of loosing your ass in a court of law, you might think twice about how important it is for you treat another person like the asshole you clearly are.Bertster7 wrote:
You're clearly an idiot, which is why you don't seem to have any grasp of what I'm saying. Just like usual, everything has gone right over your head and you don't understand what I'm talking about.lowing wrote:
Actually that is what you are saying, you think individuals have some sort of right to harass another, mentally abuse another or verbally bully another. That is not what free speech is meant to protect. Protecting another's right to privacy is more important than whatever right you think you have to abuse, humiliate or harass them for your personal enjoyment or vengeance.
How do retrospectively applied privacy laws work? Sanctions against the person who brought the information into the public domain. Does that help in any way? No, it just blows the issue out of all proportion and makes it spread far more quickly and creates ridiculous legal situations - which I have already shown numerous examples of. What have you shown? Nothing. You've just presented an example of someone doing something unpleasant and so decided it should be illegal. Just because we find something distasteful is no reason for it to be illegal - especially when it infringes on such crucial rights.
In the US you are lucky, you have freedom of speech, whereas in the UK we don't - freedom of expression they call it, but it's just freedom of speech with even more caveats than you get in the US. Our privacy laws are ridiculous as well and are currently under Parliamentry review because they've caused such controversy and legal nightmares. You don't understand what you've got and you're stupid enough to be complaining about it.
Where is it you get this notion that free speech means free to harass, bully and mentally abuse another person anyway?
People are free to act like pricks, and you can do so without interfering in another persons life.
It's not just silly celebrity nonsense covered by these laws, things like the gagging order on the press against reporting that Trafigura had been dumping toxic waste off the Ivory Coast are quite serious.John Hemming MP wrote:
With about 75,000 people having named Ryan Giggs on Twitter it is obviously impracticable to imprison them all and with reports that Giles Coren also faces imprisonment...the question is what the Government's view is on the enforceability of a law which clearly does not have public consent?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-06-14 12:32:04)
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.Jaekus wrote:
Laws do have shades of grey to them, and it would be naive to believe otherwise.Bertster7 wrote:
That's the whole point. Laws have to be clear cut or they go horribly wrong.Jaekus wrote:
Nah, I don't buy it. You are taking an innocent example and applying it to a fairly extreme context. Talking to a colleague in the workplace about another fellow colleague's whereabouts is worlds apart from posting a billboard to the world about what is clearly a private and personal matter.
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....
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.
Ya know you keep dancing around the issue at hand. You think free speech includes the harassment mental abuse and bullying of another person. I think it does not. 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? Try answering this instead of dismissing it by declaring I am an idiot.Bertster7 wrote:
Well done. You've managed not to address a single point and still haven't referred to the examples of given of this stuff not working.lowing wrote:
How do you "retrospectively" protect someone? By punishing those guilty of infringing on another right to life liberty and happiness. Risk of having your own life turned upside down should be a deterrence. If not, roll the dice and see what the outcome is. When you stand a chance of loosing your ass in a court of law, you might think twice about how important it is for you treat another person like the asshole you clearly are.Bertster7 wrote:
You're clearly an idiot, which is why you don't seem to have any grasp of what I'm saying. Just like usual, everything has gone right over your head and you don't understand what I'm talking about.
How do retrospectively applied privacy laws work? Sanctions against the person who brought the information into the public domain. Does that help in any way? No, it just blows the issue out of all proportion and makes it spread far more quickly and creates ridiculous legal situations - which I have already shown numerous examples of. What have you shown? Nothing. You've just presented an example of someone doing something unpleasant and so decided it should be illegal. Just because we find something distasteful is no reason for it to be illegal - especially when it infringes on such crucial rights.
In the US you are lucky, you have freedom of speech, whereas in the UK we don't - freedom of expression they call it, but it's just freedom of speech with even more caveats than you get in the US. Our privacy laws are ridiculous as well and are currently under Parliamentry review because they've caused such controversy and legal nightmares. You don't understand what you've got and you're stupid enough to be complaining about it.
Where is it you get this notion that free speech means free to harass, bully and mentally abuse another person anyway?
People are free to act like pricks, and you can do so without interfering in another persons life.
Truly incredible debating skills.
So how do you explain the epic failure of privacy laws in the UK if privacy law is such a perfect and wonderful thing?
I am - I have points and examples. What have you given? Nothing - just your foolhardy opinion based on no substance whatsoever.lowing wrote:
Ya know you keep dancing around the issue at hand. You think free speech includes the harassment mental abuse and bullying of another person. I think it does not. 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? Try answering this instead of dismissing it by declaring I am an idiot.Bertster7 wrote:
Well done. You've managed not to address a single point and still haven't referred to the examples of given of this stuff not working.lowing wrote:
How do you "retrospectively" protect someone? By punishing those guilty of infringing on another right to life liberty and happiness. Risk of having your own life turned upside down should be a deterrence. If not, roll the dice and see what the outcome is. When you stand a chance of loosing your ass in a court of law, you might think twice about how important it is for you treat another person like the asshole you clearly are.
Where is it you get this notion that free speech means free to harass, bully and mentally abuse another person anyway?
People are free to act like pricks, and you can do so without interfering in another persons life.
Truly incredible debating skills.
So how do you explain the epic failure of privacy laws in the UK if privacy law is such a perfect and wonderful thing?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-06-14 12:35:53)
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?Bertster7 wrote:
I am - I have points and examples. What have you given? Nothing - just your foolhardy opinion based on no substance whatsoever.lowing wrote:
Ya know you keep dancing around the issue at hand. You think free speech includes the harassment mental abuse and bullying of another person. I think it does not. 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? Try answering this instead of dismissing it by declaring I am an idiot.Bertster7 wrote:
Well done. You've managed not to address a single point and still haven't referred to the examples of given of this stuff not working.
Truly incredible debating skills.
So how do you explain the epic failure of privacy laws in the UK if privacy law is such a perfect and wonderful thing?
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?Bertster7 wrote:
I am - I have points and examples. What have you given? Nothing - just your foolhardy opinion based on no substance whatsoever.lowing wrote:
Ya know you keep dancing around the issue at hand. You think free speech includes the harassment mental abuse and bullying of another person. I think it does not. 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? Try answering this instead of dismissing it by declaring I am an idiot.Bertster7 wrote:
Well done. You've managed not to address a single point and still haven't referred to the examples of given of this stuff not working.
Truly incredible debating skills.
So how do you explain the epic failure of privacy laws in the UK if privacy law is such a perfect and wonderful thing?
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?
No starting over.lowing wrote:
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?Bertster7 wrote:
I am - I have points and examples. What have you given? Nothing - just your foolhardy opinion based on no substance whatsoever.lowing wrote:
Ya know you keep dancing around the issue at hand. You think free speech includes the harassment mental abuse and bullying of another person. I think it does not. 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? Try answering this instead of dismissing it by declaring I am an idiot.
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?
Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-06-14 13:58:54)