|
I concur, we manage to avoid nutters running around shooting people quite effectively over here.
(Or at least its incredibly rare).
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
This will be knocked over on appeal or subsequent challenge. Laws need to based on common sense, and in this we are clearly lacking.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Uncommon sense is more accurate these days.
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
You are making the unwarranted assumption that common sense is common.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time - a tremendous whack.
--Winston Churchill
|
|
|
|
|
Even if you're willing to look past the utter contempt for free speech one is still left with the obvious question: "How about holding trolls responsible for their own conduct?" Oh, that's right, most trolls don't have near the cash reserves that a successful web business may have.
To make sense of this you only need to consider other ridiculous rulings (anti-trust against Microsoft/Google/Apple). This ruling sets up successful websites for vicious and expensive lawsuits - that way, the EU doesn't have to build anything or do any of the hard work, but rather, fat white men can sit back and award their governments hundreds of millions of dollars for doing absolutely nothing other than 'being appalled'.
1: The courts have excused the government from enforcement.
2: The courts have excused the government from innovation/investment.
3: The courts have made the government's only task to collect fines from the successful.
Die in a fire.
|
|
|
|
|
You deserve another upvote for that - even though you were rather merciful with respect to the manner of death.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Actually this is not a simple black and white issue.
My belief in free speech is being speedily shattered by some of misogynist, racist and downright sick hate speech frequently occurring on forums, generally on those of major sites (YouTube comments frequently illustrate the point well). Including death threats.
If a site allows users to create anonymous accounts, they are effectively sheltering them from being held responsible for their statements, even when those statements are illegal. If the web site fails to remove these statements, then who exactly is responsible?
(That is the exact situation in this case - the site refused to take down hate speech which was illegal under European law).
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: If a site allows users to create anonymous accounts, they are effectively sheltering them from being held responsible for their statements, even when those statements are illegal. If the web site fails to remove these statements, then who exactly is responsible?
There is so much wrong with this it is difficult to know where to begin.
1: You cite 'sheltering them from being held responsible' - this assumes that people should be held responsible for trolling a website. I don't acknowledge your presupposition that the government has any grounds WHATSOVER to interfere with free speech.
2: Illegal statement? This situation highlights not the troll problem but rather the very serious problem that a statement could be illegal. The idea that a statement could be illegal should scare all of us.
3: Who should be held accountable? I dunno, let's start with the public school system. They've 12 years to brain wash a kid and somehow that kid gets through the system and still think Jews are a menace? I say FINE the public schools - oh wait, that isn't robbing the right people (from the perspective of the government). I think the case can be made that the SCHOOLS should be fined, teachers jailed - they've clearly failed.
If you believe fining websites makes any sense I'll come over to your house and say illegal things in your yard. When you fail to stop me I'll have you arrested and all of your money confiscated.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't, for example, feel that death threats should be illegal?
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: You don't, for example, feel that death threats should be illegal?
Why would a death threat be illegal?
I agree it would be better if people didn't say/write those things but I'd like to see the government properly handle a case where someone actually did the crime - maybe once those are handled in a fair, efficient manner we can move onto potential crime.
But even worse, if the EU levies a fine for a death threat does the money go to help protect the threatened party or does it end up in a slush fund for hookers & blow for the oligarchs that are currently in the process of destroying Western Civilization?
Removing the death threat from the website doesn't make the target safer.
It will make a bunch of bloated bureaucrats more powerful though - which is the real point.
|
|
|
|
|
MehGerbil wrote: Why would a death threat be illegal?
If you cannot see that, I really don't see any point in debating with you.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: If you cannot see that, I really don't see any point in debating with you.
I'd invite you to actually put into words why a death threat, on a private forum, should be considered a criminal act. I suspect the reason you don't want to debate it is because it just occurred to you that you've no real rational reason for such a position.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the many straw men arguments, to illustrate just one, "If you believe fining websites makes any sense I'll come over to your house and say illegal things in your yard. When you fail to stop me I'll have you arrested and all of your money confiscated."
Of course, the site could have just removed the offending post, then they would not have been liable.
As I stated originally, I DO believe in free speech, I was simply saying that some of the idiotic level of debate on these forums really does stretch it to breaking point. Further, I feel that web sites should be subject to the law of the land, just as everything else. While America has free speech laws (and I agree with them), there are limits. You can't go into an office building and shout "Fire" without repercussions, its just a matter of setting limits appropriately. Other countries have come to different decisions on where that point is, and I also don't like the US defining what is OK on the web, and what isn't.
As I said it is not black and white. Unfortunately most people don't seem to have the ability to detect shades of gray nowadays.
(To clarify, when I say "these" forums, I'm not referring to CP specifically - most debate here is reasonable, even if people can't read effectively and sometimes misinterpret willfully the original post).
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: Thanks for the many straw men arguments, to illustrate just one, "If you believe fining websites makes any sense I'll come over to your house and say illegal things in your yard. When you fail to stop me I'll have you arrested and all of your money confiscated."
That wasn't a straw man argument.
It was dead on point.
If I write a racial slur on a private website which isn't immediately removed how is that different than if I voice a racial slur at your Christmas party wherein you don't immediately force the statement to be removed? Both are instances of private conversations held on private property.
Rob Grainger wrote: As I stated originally, I DO believe in free speech, I was simply saying that some of the idiotic level of debate on these forums really does stretch it to breaking point. Further, I feel that web sites should be subject to the law of the land, just as everything else. While America has free speech laws (and I agree with them), there are limits. You can't go into an office building and shout "Fire" without repercussions, its just a matter of setting limits appropriately. Other countries have come to different decisions on where that point is, and I also don't like the US defining what is OK on the web, and what isn't.
If you'd like an example of an actual straw man argument look no further.
The yelling of "FIRE" isn't just free speech but rather inciting panic. That isn't merely stating an opinion or expressing frustration with a class of people - that is abusing a well known method of raising an alarm.
Whatever the case, it isn't even the free speech issue that cracks me up here. It is the absurdity of the EU bending logic to get into someone else's bank account. I'll be so glad when Western Civilization is gone - I don't think it will be replaced by something better but at least there is a brutal honesty to marauding warlords that you don't get with our current oligarchs.
|
|
|
|
|
Making a comment in a public forum, such as this one, cannot be construed as private property.
In the UK, if I use a racist insult in a pub, for example, I can be asked to leave, justifiably, if a policeman overheard the remark I could expect to be arrested, again justifiably.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
The public in public forum is a refers to access level granted.
The public in public property is a refers to state ownership.
So a public forum (access level) can still be private property.
The pub example you used is the case of a private property owner asking an unwelcome guest to leave his privately owned, yet publically accessible, pub. Don't confuse private property rights (which I support) with jackbooted government drones. The politicians want to suppress free speech because it is one of the few tools we have against their criminal activities.
|
|
|
|
|
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I refer you to my response to MehGerbil above.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
IMO, every website (or more precise news site or blog) would be better off without comments. Seriously, most of the time you will see either trolls, or stubborn people sharing their opinion without the guts to take any critics which leads to rants etc. And then there are the fanboys vs. haters, smart alecs and spam-bots. It's very rare to find a portal where comments have a certain quality and where they work without serious moderation. Part of the reason is that people kind of "abuse" the comment section all the time in a forum-like way, IMO a comment should be a feedback to the author and not a place to start discussions (which is what happenes all the time). Therefore, the whole idea of commenting is flawed and better be dismissed, either run a forum where people can discuss your stuff or leave it off.
To come back to topic, I still don't get the reasoning why the operator of a website should be responsible for the mental outbursts of their commenters.
|
|
|
|
|
FIorian Schneidereit wrote: To come back to topic, I still don't get the reasoning why the operator of a website should be responsible for the mental outbursts of their commenters.
I agree, but feel that authorities should be able to request certain posts be removed when the post breaks the law in the relevant country. Failure to comply can reasonably be penalised, maybe not as badly as the original poster could be if they could be located, but a fine seems perfectly reasonable step in this case.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|
|
Rob Grainger wrote: I agree, but feel that authorities should be able to request certain posts be removed when the post breaks the law in the relevant country.
Sure, that's a point and legitimate, but what is the definiton of a relevant country? The internet is a global thing, so it's hard to enforce legality under all possible circumstances. I mean, what if someone posts a comment with content that is illegal in the EU but not in the US (where the website is actually hosted)? It's perfectly fine in the US, but since the content is available world wide it will be visible in other countries as well where it might be illegal (unless some kind of censorship is involved, but I'm sure we don't want it to be like that). A perfect example is the Swastika - it's illegal in Germany but not in the U.S. AFAIK. The question is: Should it be possible for Germany to send a takedown request?
|
|
|
|
|
they need to hire some CP'ers to do the job right - the first time.
|
|
|
|
|
A DoS by anonymous. They are protesting this countries "Anti-Terrorism" laws, and I use the term loosely.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Jonathan Rothman, New Yorker magazine: [^].
"In the airport, for example, we listen to music through headphones to avoid listening to CNN. There’s a sense, he argues, in which personal-technology companies are in an arms race with advertising and marketing firms. If you go to the movies and turn off your phone prematurely, you may be stuck watching the pre-preview ads—but, if you have an Apple Watch, you can still assert your autonomy by scrolling through lists and checking your step count. Fundamentally, of course, the two sides are indistinguishable: they both speak in what Crawford calls “autonomy talk,” “the consumerist language of preference satisfaction,” in which consumer choice is identified with liberation and happiness. “Choice serves as the central totem of consumer capitalism, and those who present choices to us appear as handmaidens to our own freedom,” he writes."
«I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center» Kurt Vonnegut.
|
|
|
|
|
I just open a tab to "The Lounge".
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
