scratching at .8, just hopin'
Serious-ish-ly pondering the effectiveness of an 'allow one punch rule' to deal with people like the WBC, I conclude that it wouldn't actually work. I think they'd take the punches with pride and go on about how Jesus was beaten for his convictions. Maybe get the little children (who obviously won't be attacked) to cry as their mummies and daddies are hit to get some sympathy coverage - "You're not hurting me, you're hurting my children." And if anyone accidentally goes too far, it's a litigation bonanza.
I think most groups that act like dickheads do so from a position of power or invulnerability- lads spoiling for a fight, queen bitches at school with a bigger group than you, wrinkly old racists who could freely employ the Wounded Gazelle Gambit if you hit them to make you the villain, gankers in MM Os who are ten levels higher than you and part of a large, aggressive troll group that gets its giggles and a profit from ambushing revenge attacks. Against those groups you need the Law, the game mods or some good self-control.
I sometimes fear this real-life troll group will gets its own version in the UK. Thankfully they haven't spread even in the US.
edited 1st Apr '12 1:58:40 AM by betaalpha
Fred and his daughter Shirley are banned from entering the United Kingdom.
"We will continue to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.
"The exclusions policy is targeted at all those who seek to stir up tension and provoke others to violence regardless of their origins and beliefs."
I find it strange that it is somehow a "right" for people to hate each other based on arbitrary reasons, especially for reasons that not only the said person can do nothing about, but also has no basis apart from history and traditions.
As someone who people might classify as "Asian" I don't feel offended. I feel threatened, that somebody is going to hate me just because what I look like.
edited 1st Apr '12 4:49:22 PM by IraTheSquire
I know. I've seen some people who are supposed to be my "fellow" people (ie, people who are from Hong Kong) who disliked the mainland Chinese people for various reasons and it is just as disturbing. My sister and I are trying hard to talk my parents out of their racial prejudice against Indians and whites and whatnot as well (their prejudice against whites aren't as great though).
It's just that the idea that it is a "right" to "hate people" based on the colour of their skin and appearance is extremely disturbing. "Hate" is pretty strong, and to those who are hated it practically means "I want to exterminate you on sight".
Personally I'm just bothered by the precedent that it should be socially acceptable for the state to lock someone up for what is ultimately expressing is politically unsavoury views.
As Noam Chomsky said, If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all.
hashtagsarestupidAs I said, people expressing their hatred towards a certain group of people based on their colour and other things that they cannot change is greatly disturbing and outright threatening to those people. Calling that just "politically unsavoury" is like saying that threatening somebody with violence is "politically unsavoury". Saying that it is "offensive" is a great Understatement and I think that word has been abused rather too much anyway.
Edit: And I'm not talking about random "racist" jokes that are basically just make fun of certain aspects of other people's culture, either (I make jokes about me being a "Chinaman" sometimes). Just the straight, direct statements like "Those Chinks are stupid and morons and they should be out of our country/killed."
edited 1st Apr '12 5:32:01 PM by IraTheSquire
Incidence of violence is a crime and rightfully so. People shouldn't have to live in fear of abuse.
But I can't say this is what happen in the UK. liam stacey's tweets were hardly political, but the reasons for his arrested were. The public were praying Fabrice Muamba and this guy was insulting him. The courts didn't justify their sentence on the grounds of public safety, or threatening behaviour, or personal harassment of Muamba. It was making people feel bad.
edited 1st Apr '12 5:45:01 PM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupidLooking at the OP, that incidence of trolling was pretty blatant—no different really than pissing on peoples' gravestones, and I'd certainly endorse arresting offenders for that. It's more or less the same reason why the police can arrest naked people.
Going off that line of thought, I guess you could argue for criminalizing racism/trolling if you try equate it to that same sort of "disruption of the peace," but quite honestly, the line between what would make hate speech tolerable and intolerable is incredibly ambiguous—and ambiguous laws are the most remarkably easy to abuse. Therefore, I think the extent to which hate propaganda is tolerated in the U.S. is about at the right level because the boundaries are reasonably clear.
They never travel alone.Arizona Looks to Outlaw Internet Trolling
That is quite interesting because this is show how far the First amendment goes with regards to hateful and harmful speech online.
Dutch LesbianI'm with it until it says "annoy." Every other verb here seems alright, but "annoy" can mean literally anything.
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.Hey, I said "up to."
Yeah, "offend" is a vague one too, but I see "annoy" as the vaguest of them all.
The key word there is "with intent to" — the law provides an out for unintentional offense given, but the question is how you prove it one way or the other.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And once again, a good idea is poorly executed. Mind, I don't have any better ideas, but how would you prove intent? Poe's Law is pretty clear on how that will end.
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.Another thing: The web is worldwide. This law is in a single state. Are only the people who live in Arizona under its jurisdiction, and, if so, how does that do much of anything if the harassers don't live there?
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.I'm no legal expert but I think it depends. If it's single users, then the guy who did it must have been in Arizona, no matter where the server is. OTOH, if they want to shut down an entire forum over it, the server better be in Arizona, no matter where the clients are.
Of course, some entities (the USA as a whole is infamous for that) try to push their jurisdiction way beyond any reasonable limits, so who knows...
Unbent, Unbowed, Unbroken. Unrelated ME1 FanficGiven the current problem we're having with trolls (see here
), I'm beginning to think we need more laws like this. Emphasis on like; the one this thread was started in response to still needs work. But some random jackass shouldn't be able to bring financial ruin on a site by complaining to the ad servers until someone does what they say.
edited 6th Apr '12 12:58:01 PM by Discar
Writing a post-post apocalypse LitRPG on RR. Also fanfic stuff.It's not really a troll, someone saw content they had a problem with and reported it.
edited 6th Apr '12 1:49:02 PM by inane242
The 5 geek social fallacies. Know them well.
