dolls?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Oh look, DS complaining about DST again. Go play with your dolls.
Films are?HITNRUNXX wrote:
So all forums should be moderated by the government then?
video games were on the verge of becomingCheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Films are?HITNRUNXX wrote:
So all forums should be moderated by the government then?
@ Uzique - i disagree with you over the only debate being whether or not someone should be held accountable for what they say on twitter- although i don't agree that someone should be held accountable for that, either. Twitter is not a public medium any more than this message board is. That some people choose to treat it as a public message board does not make it so.
I really think the "incitement to racial hatred" law is a step back in regards to censorship and freedom. I don't condone any racism or ageism or sexism or any other -ism (not including jism). Do we really need a law to tell us that's not ok? I think its up to society to ostracize and inform people it's not ok - i don't think it's a role the government should take. I think the US' use of 'clear and present danger' as a benchmark for what constitutes incitement-level speech that is not allowed is a better middle ground.
How is anyone having their freedom or liberty impinged on? That argument falls flat on it's face.
The arrest was for inciting racial hatred, not disturbing the peace, right?
I really think the "incitement to racial hatred" law is a step back in regards to censorship and freedom. I don't condone any racism or ageism or sexism or any other -ism (not including jism). Do we really need a law to tell us that's not ok? I think its up to society to ostracize and inform people it's not ok - i don't think it's a role the government should take. I think the US' use of 'clear and present danger' as a benchmark for what constitutes incitement-level speech that is not allowed is a better middle ground.
How is anyone having their freedom or liberty impinged on? That argument falls flat on it's face.
The arrest was for inciting racial hatred, not disturbing the peace, right?
Is that actually a question or a statement? With the exception of some states outlawing pornography, I am not aware of the government stepping in and saying a movie can't be made.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Films are?HITNRUNXX wrote:
So all forums should be moderated by the government then?
Last edited by HITNRUNXX (2012-04-04 11:08:05)
You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
@ Uzique - i disagree with you over the only debate being whether or not someone should be held accountable for what they say on twitter- although i don't agree that someone should be held accountable for that, either. Twitter is not a public medium any more than this message board is. That some people choose to treat it as a public message board does not make it so.
I really think the "incitement to racial hatred" law is a step back in regards to censorship and freedom. I don't condone any racism or ageism or sexism or any other -ism (not including jism). Do we really need a law to tell us that's not ok? I think its up to society to ostracize and inform people it's not ok - i don't think it's a role the government should take. I think the US' use of 'clear and present danger' as a benchmark for what constitutes incitement-level speech that is not allowed is a better middle ground.
How is anyone having their freedom or liberty impinged on? That argument falls flat on it's face.
The arrest was for inciting racial hatred, not disturbing the peace, right?
I agree completely. He wasn't shouting fire in a crowded theater, or marching down the street with a megaphone at 2 am, he was one part of the din that is the roar of internet stupidity. If you don't like what he says on twitter... don't follow him. If you don't want to read what someone writes about you on the internet... don't visit the site or open the thread.
It's one thing if what he said led to a physical assault on the guy, but that didn't happen, and afaik it wasn't even a realistic scenario.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Also when you are talking about slander and libel, you are hurting someone's reputation. Where did this guy hurt anyone's rep except his own?Dilbert_X wrote:
People could plug their ears I guess, its not as if I'd be forcing them to listen, any more than anyone is forced to read whats written about them in the newpapers - why do they then get so upset and sue?
Social networking is the new forum, people who don't like rules can find somewhere else.
Looks like it, since annoying comments here are like ranting through a megaphone at 150db at 3AM.HITNRUNXX wrote:
So all forums should be moderated by the government then?
Brits have vastly different laws regarding libel than we do. It is next to impossible to convict someone of it here which is why Star and the National Enquirer and everyone else gets away with it. Much different over there.HITNRUNXX wrote:
Also when you are talking about slander and libel, you are hurting someone's reputation. Where did this guy hurt anyone's rep except his own?Dilbert_X wrote:
People could plug their ears I guess, its not as if I'd be forcing them to listen, any more than anyone is forced to read whats written about them in the newpapers - why do they then get so upset and sue?
Social networking is the new forum, people who don't like rules can find somewhere else.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
its all rated. Lots of films have been banned / scenes cut.HITNRUNXX wrote:
Is that actually a question or a statement? With the exception of some states outlawing pornography, I am not aware of the government stepping in and saying a movie can't be made.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Films are?HITNRUNXX wrote:
So all forums should be moderated by the government then?
Film ratings, like video games, are an internal industry thing. The industry polices itself. The government doesn't interfere. 'Banned' scenes are not really banned but were just taken out to get a certain rating. It's a marketing thing.
Assault doesn't have to be physical, a "perceived threat" is enough. And your "don't follow him" statement doesn't really work - the guy was interjecting himself into a public discussion and personally picking out people and insulting them. It's personal, it's threatening, and it's different from the sort of voluntary-willing contract of discussion you have when you partake and visit a message board. I agree that policing the Internet and holding people accountable to things they say and do on the Internet is a dangerous line to tread... but I also think that this guy was clearly stepping way over a civil mark. And I completely condone the use of judicial action to punish people that are being ignorant racists. Sets a good example. A right to free expression is one thing; a right to being a fucking mong is something I will gladly see revoked.Jay wrote:
You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
@ Uzique - i disagree with you over the only debate being whether or not someone should be held accountable for what they say on twitter- although i don't agree that someone should be held accountable for that, either. Twitter is not a public medium any more than this message board is. That some people choose to treat it as a public message board does not make it so.
I really think the "incitement to racial hatred" law is a step back in regards to censorship and freedom. I don't condone any racism or ageism or sexism or any other -ism (not including jism). Do we really need a law to tell us that's not ok? I think its up to society to ostracize and inform people it's not ok - i don't think it's a role the government should take. I think the US' use of 'clear and present danger' as a benchmark for what constitutes incitement-level speech that is not allowed is a better middle ground.
How is anyone having their freedom or liberty impinged on? That argument falls flat on it's face.
The arrest was for inciting racial hatred, not disturbing the peace, right?
I agree completely. He wasn't shouting fire in a crowded theater, or marching down the street with a megaphone at 2 am, he was one part of the din that is the roar of internet stupidity. If you don't like what he says on twitter... don't follow him. If you don't want to read what someone writes about you on the internet... don't visit the site or open the thread.
It's one thing if what he said led to a physical assault on the guy, but that didn't happen, and afaik it wasn't even a realistic scenario.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I'll happily grant that our libel laws are in need of reform - they're just plainly out of date. But discussing slander/libel here (as Dilbert did) is pretty wrong because I don't think it has anything to do with the charges brought against the guy. The libel laws we have over here that allow so-called "libel tourism" are just a historical hangover from when our press and Fleet Street establishment were far too close to the other public services and branches of government. That's olde England at work.Jay wrote:
Brits have vastly different laws regarding libel than we do. It is next to impossible to convict someone of it here which is why Star and the National Enquirer and everyone else gets away with it. Much different over there.HITNRUNXX wrote:
Also when you are talking about slander and libel, you are hurting someone's reputation. Where did this guy hurt anyone's rep except his own?Dilbert_X wrote:
People could plug their ears I guess, its not as if I'd be forcing them to listen, any more than anyone is forced to read whats written about them in the newpapers - why do they then get so upset and sue?
Social networking is the new forum, people who don't like rules can find somewhere else.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
How is a drunkard tens of kilometers from the stadium presenting any threat? Stupidity is a lamentable thing, but shouldn't be prohibited by the state unless it is manifest in actions that could potential injure others, such as speeding or lynching black people. I simply don't see how some moron sitting in his flat with an empty fifth of whiskey and his twitter account is doing anything other than advertising his lack of intelligence to the world.Uzique wrote:
Assault doesn't have to be physical, a "perceived threat" is enough. And your "don't follow him" statement doesn't really work - the guy was interjecting himself into a public discussion and personally picking out people and insulting them. It's personal, it's threatening, and it's different from the sort of voluntary-willing contract of discussion you have when you partake and visit a message board. I agree that policing the Internet and holding people accountable to things they say and do on the Internet is a dangerous line to tread... but I also think that this guy was clearly stepping way over a civil mark. And I completely condone the use of judicial action to punish people that are being ignorant racists. Sets a good example. A right to free expression is one thing; a right to being a fucking mong is something I will gladly see revoked.Jay wrote:
You may not karma the same person in a 24 hour period.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
@ Uzique - i disagree with you over the only debate being whether or not someone should be held accountable for what they say on twitter- although i don't agree that someone should be held accountable for that, either. Twitter is not a public medium any more than this message board is. That some people choose to treat it as a public message board does not make it so.
I really think the "incitement to racial hatred" law is a step back in regards to censorship and freedom. I don't condone any racism or ageism or sexism or any other -ism (not including jism). Do we really need a law to tell us that's not ok? I think its up to society to ostracize and inform people it's not ok - i don't think it's a role the government should take. I think the US' use of 'clear and present danger' as a benchmark for what constitutes incitement-level speech that is not allowed is a better middle ground.
How is anyone having their freedom or liberty impinged on? That argument falls flat on it's face.
The arrest was for inciting racial hatred, not disturbing the peace, right?
I agree completely. He wasn't shouting fire in a crowded theater, or marching down the street with a megaphone at 2 am, he was one part of the din that is the roar of internet stupidity. If you don't like what he says on twitter... don't follow him. If you don't want to read what someone writes about you on the internet... don't visit the site or open the thread.
It's one thing if what he said led to a physical assault on the guy, but that didn't happen, and afaik it wasn't even a realistic scenario.
i'm still in awe how anyone can defend racism. there is a definite line between being just fucking dumb, and being a racist.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Don't conflate defending racism with defending the right to utter racist statements. Suppressing racist thoughts should be achieved through social opprobrium, not government policy restricting speech.
Ah, as they are called the "British board of film classification" I figured they had a state contribution a la bbc whereas they are infact self financing.Macbeth wrote:
Film ratings, like video games, are an internal industry thing. The industry polices itself. The government doesn't interfere. 'Banned' scenes are not really banned but were just taken out to get a certain rating. It's a marketing thing.
As for the main subject, its no different really to the "rioter" that went to prison for posting on twitter / facebook "who wants to start a riot" when nothing actually happened.
No, there's no difference whatsoever. There's nothing special about holding an opinion of others based on their race. It's no different than hating short people, or hating gingers, or any other bullshit thing that people have no control over. It's just ignorance.FatherTed wrote:
i'm still in awe how anyone can defend racism. there is a definite line between being just fucking dumb, and being a racist.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Who's defending racism?FatherTed wrote:
i'm still in awe how anyone can defend racism. there is a definite line between being just fucking dumb, and being a racist.
erm the people saying he shouldn't have been prosecuted for being racist in a public arena?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Who's defending racism?FatherTed wrote:
i'm still in awe how anyone can defend racism. there is a definite line between being just fucking dumb, and being a racist.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Yes it is different, legally speaking (at least in the US). There are laws and precedents for prosecuting for inciting action, even if nothing happened. That is not protected by the first amendment. You should check out our free speech laws, I really think they are the best (as I mentioned earlier).Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Ah, as they are called the "British board of film classification" I figured they had a state contribution a la bbc whereas they are infact self financing.Macbeth wrote:
Film ratings, like video games, are an internal industry thing. The industry polices itself. The government doesn't interfere. 'Banned' scenes are not really banned but were just taken out to get a certain rating. It's a marketing thing.
As for the main subject, its no different really to the "rioter" that went to prison for posting on twitter / facebook "who wants to start a riot" when nothing actually happened.
Twitter isn't a public arena. And no, he shouldn't be prosecuted for being racist in a public arena. That's not a defense of racism, that's a defense of free speech. The guy is a fucking idiot, for sure. But you should be legally allowed to say what he said.FatherTed wrote:
erm the people saying he shouldn't have been prosecuted for being racist in a public arena?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Who's defending racism?FatherTed wrote:
i'm still in awe how anyone can defend racism. there is a definite line between being just fucking dumb, and being a racist.
how exactly is twitter not a public arena lmao
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Because its on the fucking Internet. Is this forum a public arena?
and maybe your definition of free speech is literally 'say what you want' but over here our society does not tolerate dickheads, and our laws reflect that.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella