Your Government Knows Better than You

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,598
This is a bit of a roundup on things buzzing today about how the government is getting involved in what you see on the web and what you are "allowed" to show others on the web.

The State of Ohio passed a law last year that states, "no person shall knowingly post a text or audio statement or an image on an internet web site or web page for the purpose of abusing, threatening or harassing another person." Ignoring the questionable lack of Oxford Comma usage by the law authors, you can see where interpretation of what constitutes abuse, a threat, or harassment is a slippery slope. The lawsuit that has been filed i s specific to political speech.
(I will see my Ohio peeps tomorrow at RoTR!)

The suit, filed by UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh and Cleveland attorney Raymond Vasvari, says the law "criminalizes speech about an unwilling subject."

And here in the Great State of Texas, we are going all Minority Report on sports streaming websites.

Texas Court Orders Sports Streaming Sites To Be Blocked In Anticipation Of Piracy.

And across the pond, the BBC is tired of you dogging other folks on its websites, and is going to tell Mom on you for being a meany.

Offensive or inappropriate content on BBC websites - If you post or send offensive, inappropriate or objectionable content anywhere on or to BBC websites or otherwise engage in any disruptive behaviour on any BBC service, the BBC may use your personal information to stop such behaviour. Where the BBC reasonably believes that you are or may be in breach of any applicable laws (e.g. because content you have posted may be defamatory), the BBC may use your personal information to inform relevant third parties such as your employer, school email/internet provider or law enforcement agencies about the content and your behaviour.
 
katanaD said:
there are already laws against harassing or threatening someone, why do we need new ones to do the same thing?

instead of grandstanding to show off, why not actually enforce existing laws?
Click to expand...
because harassment has a different definition in the law and what everyone else thinks.
Disagreeing with someone's political views isn't harassment.
 
For the first time in a few years I'm not going to RotR, wish I was now, would do a [H] meet up with the one and only Kyle lol

It's only two hours away but SWMBO has declared we're doing other things this weekend... fuck

In other news though, that BBC part is a bit scary. Who gets to determine what they find offensive and worth digging through your personal info enough to personally call your employer? And Brits like to make fun of us for our lack of freedoms, here you got probably the largest media outlet in a country telling you they will find info on you and rat you out to your boss. Fuck that noise.
 
This has been coming for a long time folks. It's what happens when you raise entire generations of babies that get butt hurt over the smallest thing and throw a bunch of ignorant crusading ultra-liberals into office who think they're doing good in the world by coddling them even more.

Nobody should be wondering why we have 8 year olds killing themselves these days. We have basically asked for this.
 
DejaWiz said:
That's the way big government wants us all: duct tape over our mouths, blindfolds over our eyes, hands in our wallets, breadlines to stand in, and curriculum that encompasses thought control.
Click to expand...
Big government!? I thought the small government people are in charge now? :confused:
 
Ultima99 said:
This has been coming for a long time folks. It's what happens when you raise entire generations of babies that get butt hurt over the smallest thing and throw a bunch of ignorant crusading ultra-liberals into office who think they're doing good in the world by coddling them even more.

Nobody should be wondering why we have 8 year olds killing themselves these days. We have basically asked for this.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't place the State of Texas in the classification of "ultra-liberals", but I might be wrong. Kyle is a damned good overclocker and liberally shares his views ... Damn! I think you nailed! :D

You've never noticed that it doesn't matter which political group or spectrum is in power that each has an agenda that results in the passage of innocuous legislation that proves: 1. They are in Power, 2. They are exercising that power, and 3. the only folks that get exercised over it is the group that thinks it's ox is being gored? :D
 
katanaD said:
there are already laws against harassing or threatening someone, why do we need new ones to do the same thing?

instead of grandstanding to show off, why not actually enforce existing laws?
Click to expand...

Tell this to anyone who wants to enact a new gun law........see what happens. :)
 
DejaWiz said:
That's the way big government wants us all: duct tape over our mouths, blindfolds over our eyes, hands in our wallets, breadlines to stand in, and curriculum that encompasses thought control.
Click to expand...


Wait wait wait.

Government in this case isn't doing this all on their own. There are plenty of criers out there demanding that their government protect them from all the trolls. You should put the blame where it is deserved.

Some kid gets warped and kills himself because he was bullied online, (like getting shoved in a locker at school is less traumatic), and Mommy and Daddy are rounding up the bleeding hearts to demand new laws criminalizing online behavior that is the same as centuries of the same thing in person. These people organize their little bleeding heart's club and if that representative doesn't "do something" write up a bill and propose a new law, it will be harder for him next election. We are supposed to hope that common sense prevails when it comes to vote but sometimes these things are settled by a popular vote and then who knows how it will end up ..... oh yes, it ends up like this did.

Do we even have to bring up that most of all this can already be dealt with in civil court, no law was required. But the people who just must be suckled by the government are not content with that so we get this bullshit instead.
 
Last edited:
Yea this is all bullshit because it is going to ultimately come down how thin-skinned people are. It may come down to the perceptions of the snow-flakes.

For example.

I can say, "Hey Kyle, you know your a dick right?"

And he can either reply, "Fuck yea I am, deal with it bitch!" or "Ow, you hurt my feelings, I'm gonna sue"
 
So the BBC has announced that they are going to use gov money (our money) to dox people and try to destroy their lives?
 
Ultima99 said:
This has been coming for a long time folks. It's what happens when you raise entire generations of babies that get butt hurt over the smallest thing and throw a bunch of ignorant crusading ultra-liberals into office who think they're doing good in the world by coddling them even more.

Nobody should be wondering why we have 8 year olds killing themselves these days. We have basically asked for this.
Click to expand...

Bit too reductive, especially if you're referencing the kid that killed himself a couple of months ago. Society is a bit warped these days, but getting knocked unconscious twice, and getting stomped out by a group of kids isn't exactly the experience anyone has in mind when they're in the 2nd grade. Kid took it to another extreme by offing himself.

Bullying itself is just as symptomatic as rampant SJWism, of the ills currently facing this society. Different extremes keep propping up in response to each other. I mean, jesus, what the f*ck does a kid know about what suicide entails? Kids are generally smarter than we give them credit for, but playing with your life is reserved for someone past being an adolescent. Now we wake up to stories of kids killing themselves at an younger age. I'm not so sure the current iteration of liberalism is fully to blame.
 
YOU DICK!

See you in 90 days.

What is abuse? What denotes satire vs. a credible threat?

It's too open. They can use it for what they want. I don't like these as you can silence people too easily when they speak their opinion. Differing view on guns/abortion/taxes/healthcare/AMD vs. Intel? That's abuse and harassment.

I like the "Don't be an asshole" mantra, but that also includes "Don't be an asshole by telling people they can't express a different opinion". If you're an asshole, society will judge you for it (based on societal norms). The law shouldn't make it so you can't be an asshole. You want to call a woman a fat cunt whale in the store real loud? It won't go over well with everyone else, but it should be legal to do so.

If this were specific as to being a credible threat against life or property, then I'd be more for it. Or a stalking law. But, I think those already exist.
 
Ur_Mom said:
YOU DICK!

See you in 90 days.

What is abuse? What denotes satire vs. a credible threat?
Click to expand...

I don't know, did you read the bill? (I ask already knowing the answer).

It's too open. They can use it for what they want. I don't like these as you can silence people too easily when they speak their opinion. Differing view on guns/abortion/taxes/healthcare/AMD vs. Intel? That's abuse and harassment.
Click to expand...

Is that how you read the definition in the bill? (I ask already knowing the answer).

I like the "Don't be an asshole" mantra, but that also includes "Don't be an asshole by telling people they can't express a different opinion". If you're an asshole, society will judge you for it (based on societal norms). The law shouldn't make it so you can't be an asshole. You want to call a woman a fat cunt whale in the store real loud? It won't go over well with everyone else, but it should be legal to do so.
Click to expand...

So you read the bill and your interpretation of it as written would prohibit you from calling someone a 'fat cunt whale'? (I ask already knowing the answer).

If this were specific as to being a credible threat against life or property, then I'd be more for it. Or a stalking law. But, I think those already exist.
Click to expand...

So you read the bill and by your reading it isn't specific to those cases? (I ask already knowing the answer).
 
Snowdensjacket said:
So the BBC has announced that they are going to use gov money (our money) to dox people and try to destroy their lives?
Click to expand...

Are you certain that "your" money is "our" money?

I am pretty sure the BBC isn't going to tax anyone, and I don't think it matters if it's the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Better Business Bureau.

Most of these listings were done by US State governments, Ohio, Texas, not the US Federal Government. And the last one is being done by a business and not a government at all.
 
lcpiper said:
Are you certain that "your" money is "our" money?

I am pretty sure the BBC isn't going to tax anyone, and I don't think it matters if it's the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Better Business Bureau.

Most of these listings were done by US State governments, Ohio, Texas, not the US Federal Government. And the last one is being done by a business and not a government at all.
Click to expand...


I see that you typed some words there but for the life of me I can't figure out wtf you are trying to say.
 
DejaWiz said:
That's the way big government wants us all: duct tape over our mouths, blindfolds over our eyes, hands in our wallets, breadlines to stand in, and curriculum that encompasses thought control.
Click to expand...

Not true, you are free to do as they tell you!

/S in case nobody gets it.
 
Ur_Mom said:
YOU DICK!

See you in 90 days.

What is abuse? What denotes satire vs. a credible threat?

It's too open. They can use it for what they want................
Click to expand...

I don't know that this is the case, though I believe the people who filed the law suite will try and sell it as such.

http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2017/05/lawsuit_challenges_ohio_intern.html
It says "no person shall knowingly post a text or audio statement or an image on an internet web site or web page for the purpose of abusing, threatening or harassing another person." A first-time violation of this law is considered a first-degree misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

As was expressed by someone else, there are laws that cover this already in most States of the US. The fact that they treat even a first time violation so seriously makes me take pause though. See, because laws that deal with these things do already exist, there are already established definitions and such that can be used to prevent the abuses you mention. So that doesn't worry me. What looks bad to me is that the punishment seems too severe, a 1st Degree Misdemeanor is the most serious non-felony charge that this law allows and we're talking up to one year in the City lock-up. It's a state law but misdemeanors don't mean time in the State Penitentiary. If a DA is dealing with a second or third offense, he has no room for a more serious punishment than to push for a felony charge and I would hope this doesn't need to go there. Then again, judges determine sentencing and although the max for a 1st Misdemeanor is 1 year in jail, the Judge doesn't have to go there at all so there is more than enough wiggle room to make those punishments actually fit the crime.

https://www.reference.com/government-politics/first-degree-misdemeanor-ohio-35294ad5ce403c16
 
Snowdensjacket said:
I see that you typed some words there but for the life of me I can't figure out wtf you are trying to say.
Click to expand...

It doesn't surprise me at all ...... :sneaky:

Look,
Where the BBC reasonably believes that you are or may be in breach of any applicable laws (e.g. because content you have posted may be defamatory), the BBC may use your personal information to inform relevant third parties such as your employer, school email/internet provider or law enforcement agencies about the content and your behaviour.
Click to expand...

See, the BBC, a business is announcing their company policy regarding how they intend to deal with people who may be posting content on the BBC's website that is illegal in England.

So 1st, no taxing or using of your tax revenues are involved here, none.

2nd, the BBC is certainly required by law to take down such content and if they failed to do so, the BBC themselves would be accountable criminally and civilly so ...... I am not sure they have a lot of choice under English law.

3rd, the word "relevant" can certainly matter more than a knee-jerk reaction might credit it with. You know, as in "legally relevant".
 
Last edited:
Jamison Collins said:
I don't know, did you read the bill? (I ask already knowing the answer).

Is that how you read the definition in the bill? (I ask already knowing the answer).

So you read the bill and your interpretation of it as written would prohibit you from calling someone a 'fat cunt whale'? (I ask already knowing the answer).

So you read the bill and by your reading it isn't specific to those cases? (I ask already knowing the answer).
Click to expand...

Nah, just the article. I did go a bit off course, as usual. I should stay exactly on topic to the topic in question and don't ask any "what if's" or what it could escalate to if these bills continue to pass. It's not that this isn't another small bit taken off a pile... I just think that more and more of these laws will happen and we'll have a Demolition Man scenario. Again, I went off course and went into the "what if" and speculation. I apologize.
 
Ur_Mom said:
Nah, just the article. I did go a bit off course, as usual. I should stay exactly on topic to the topic in question and don't ask any "what if's" or what it could escalate to if these bills continue to pass. It's not that this isn't another small bit taken off a pile... I just think that more and more of these laws will happen and we'll have a Demolition Man scenario. Again, I went off course and went into the "what if" and speculation. I apologize.
Click to expand...

I hate it when people say unreasonable things for ... perfectly ....... reasonable ............ reasons :wacky:
 
It's interesting to me how this site is covering the political attempts at influencing technology. Like the Antiwar.com of technology, it has a libertarian essence to it. That's just my impression, tho.

The global, near instantaneous exchange of unprecedented amounts of media rich information is something which is anathema to the traditional institution of State. We see this with the consistent attempts to interfere with the basic functionality of the technology at the political level. If one attempt fails, the playbook doesn't get thrown out. The legislation just gets repackaged, relabeled, and another attempt at marketing is made. (See Edward Bernays). States have a vested interest in their own continuity, there's the simple fact that a significant amount of what they do and have done are revealed for all to see in near real time now. It's a lot harder to pull off an Operation Ajax or Operation Gladio in this day and age. It takes a lot more money, a lot more resources, and greater capabilities to affect the flow of information. Perception is everything to a State. How the State and it's interested establishments chooses to frame the discussion is the only option that is desirable to them. Outside of the framework of acceptable discussion are social, economic, and ultimately martial retaliatory measures. Most are dissuaded by example, some require a label (nutjob, conspiracy theorist, dictator, etc), others have to be sanctioned in some way (no fly list, etc), fewer still have to be shot in the back in trendy neighborhoods to gain their silence.
 
ColHomer said:
Big government!? I thought the small government people are in charge now? :confused:
Click to expand...

and what big government programs and spending would you and your leftist ilk let the "small government people" get rid of ?...that's right....NONE...so your retort is so much fart gas...but quite typical

we have enough youth...how about a fountain of smart
 
I am not sure that Jamison has proven that he has a clue "what the answer is"...just an observation
 
DocFaustus said:
Yea this is all bullshit because it is going to ultimately come down how thin-skinned people are. It may come down to the perceptions of the snow-flakes.

For example.

I can say, "Hey Kyle, you know your a dick right?"

And he can either reply, "Fuck yea I am, deal with it bitch!" or "Ow, you hurt my feelings, I'm gonna sue"
Click to expand...


It really should be, "Hey Kyle, you know you're a dick, right?"

Otherwise, you're just talking about his dick and that's not harassment, it's just the free expression of love.
 
MrTryfe said:
Bit too reductive, especially if you're referencing the kid that killed himself a couple of months ago. Society is a bit warped these days, but getting knocked unconscious twice, and getting stomped out by a group of kids isn't exactly the experience anyone has in mind when they're in the 2nd grade. Kid took it to another extreme by offing himself.

Bullying itself is just as symptomatic as rampant SJWism, of the ills currently facing this society. Different extremes keep propping up in response to each other. I mean, jesus, what the f*ck does a kid know about what suicide entails? Kids are generally smarter than we give them credit for, but playing with your life is reserved for someone past being an adolescent. Now we wake up to stories of kids killing themselves at an younger age. I'm not so sure the current iteration of liberalism is fully to blame.
Click to expand...

Yes that's the kid I was referring to. I find what happened to him to be atrocious and would love to see his bullies receive a duly just (in this case rather harsh) punishment. That being allowed to happen was problem #1. The second issue is that the kid should have been at least able to tell his mom or a teacher, but what I read says he told teachers he just passed out. Third and most tragically the poor kid forfeited the rest of his life because he didn't know how to deal with this, yet he knew how to hang himself. We're seeing too many kids that are out of control and end up as bullies, or as weak, woefully unprepared snowflakes that get utterly crushed by the bullies. When I was right around that kids age a kid at school tried to start bullying me. I told the teacher and nothing happened, so I told my mom and got her permission to hit him and if I got in trouble to tell the teacher that she said it was OK because they didn't stop him. The other kid ended up crying with a black eye and tried to be my friend from there on out. If I hadn't stood up for myself things would have certainly only gotten worse.

No it isn't just liberalism the sole cause of these issues, but their eyes have been off the ball so long they don't even know what is important anymore.
 
Chuklr said:
I wouldn't place the State of Texas in the classification of "ultra-liberals", but I might be wrong. Kyle is a damned good overclocker and liberally shares his views ... Damn! I think you nailed! :D

You've never noticed that it doesn't matter which political group or spectrum is in power that each has an agenda that results in the passage of innocuous legislation that proves: 1. They are in Power, 2. They are exercising that power, and 3. the only folks that get exercised over it is the group that thinks it's ox is being gored? :D
Click to expand...

#1.Texas is a big state and it greatly varies depending on where you are. Apparently you aren't familiar with Austin.

#2. I'm a political moderate that strongly dislikes both parties because they're bloated, corrupt institutions that serve themselves first and the American public second. You just happened to see me comment on a story that highlights some of the major problems generally ascribed to Democrats/Liberals. I take issue with a great deal of the stuff Republicans/Conservatives say and do too.
 
DejaWiz said:
That's the way big government wants us all: duct tape over our mouths, blindfolds over our eyes, hands in our wallets, breadlines to stand in, and curriculum that encompasses thought control.
Click to expand...

They want these broad laws to selectively target political opponents and "undesirable" people in society.
 
lcpiper said:
It doesn't surprise me at all ...... :sneaky:

Look,

See, the BBC, a business is announcing their company policy regarding how they intend to deal with people who may be posting content on the BBC's website that is illegal in England.

So 1st, no taxing or using of your tax revenues are involved here, none.

2nd, the BBC is certainly required by law to take down such content and if they failed to do so, the BBC themselves would be accountable criminally and civilly so ...... I am not sure they have a lot of choice under English law.

3rd, the word "relevant" can certainly matter more than a knee-jerk reaction might credit it with. You know, as in "legally relevant".
Click to expand...

Uhhh lc... so, I hate to break it to you, but the BBC is most decidedly NOT a private business. 5 minutes and Wikipedia my friend -

"The BBC is established under a Royal Charter[9] and operates under its Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.[10] Its work is funded principally by an annual television licence fee[11] which is charged to all British households, companies, and organisations using any type of equipment to receive or record live television broadcasts.[12] The fee is set by the British Government, agreed by Parliament,[13] and used to fund the BBC's radio, TV, and online services covering the nations and regions of the UK. Since 1 April 2014, it has also funded the BBC World Service (launched in 1932 as the BBC Empire Service), which broadcasts in 28 languages and provides comprehensive TV, radio, and online services in Arabic and Persian."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC

Also, as for those laws being State and not Federal, perhaps you've heard of incorporation?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Amendment I
Guarantee against establishment of religion

Guarantee of free exercise of religion

Guarantee of freedom of speech

Guarantee of freedom of the press

Guarantee of freedom of assembly

Guarantee of the right to petition for redress of grievances

Guarantee of freedom of expressive association

  • This right, though not in the words of the first amendment, was first mentioned in the case NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)[25] and was at that time applied to the states. See also Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984), where the U.S. Supreme Court held that "implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment" is "a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends."
 
katanaD said:
there are already laws against harassing or threatening someone, why do we need new ones to do the same thing?

instead of grandstanding to show off, why not actually enforce existing laws?
Click to expand...
Because legislators don't do enforcement, but need to act like they're doing something to get voters. 90% of what they get up to boils down to getting reelected.
 
Killahurtz said:
and what big government programs and spending would you and your leftist ilk let the "small government people" get rid of ?...that's right....NONE...so your retort is so much fart gas...but quite typical

we have enough youth...how about a fountain of smart
Click to expand...
It's a jab at Republicans that pretend to be for smaller government...until they're in charge.

There is absolutely nothing stopping the Republicans from enacting major reforms that shrink government. Instead, they can't even bring themselves to get rid of the piece of legislation they've called out by name for years, the AG wants to expand the drug war, and they're scared of a "government shutdown" which only really shuts down relatively useless expenditures they claim they want to get rid of in the first place.

It would be one thing if Trump vetoed stuff since he's always been a big gov guy, but it's not even getting to his desk and Dems have almost no power in government at the state or federal level so you can't blame leftists for it.
 
Killahurtz said:
I am not sure that Jamison has proven that he has a clue "what the answer is"...just an observation
Click to expand...
The answer is, no, he had not read the bill and was simply speculating based on the summary provided. I suspect the actual bill was longer than one sentence.

Oh, and kudos to all of you who can't hold back on bashing 'leftists' and 'liberals' for the law. Read the article next time, m'kay?

The bill that passed last year was put forth by Rep. Marlene Anielski, a Walton Hills Republican.
Click to expand...
 
Jamison Collins said:
The answer is, no, he had not read the bill and was simply speculating based on the summary provided. I suspect the actual bill was longer than one sentence.
Click to expand...

You should read my other posts. I tend to go beyond the original idea. A lot of "what if's" and what things could lead to. A lot of speculation. But, I still feel it's relevant. If I wanted to pick apart this single bill without any discussion on what it could mean for the future, I'd be a lawyer. I'm not. I'm just a computer dork that likes to think of what things could become.

This bill may not say the things I mentioned, but it's a step in that direction, IMO. Continue to limit speech one bit at a time. Soon, you won't be able to shit *two credits have been deducted from your account*....

 
katanaD said:
there are already laws against harassing or threatening someone, why do we need new ones to do the same thing?

instead of grandstanding to show off, why not actually enforce existing laws?
Click to expand...
More opportunity to harrass people with the legal system / government bureaucracy. More opportunity to punish someone. Those laws plus this, you may make one of the two stick. Or just making someone deal with it is punishment in itself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top