Google Ordered to Name Anonymous Online Bullies

Originally posted by againuntodust

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by againuntodust

 

The right to free speech does not include harassment and slander. That's prosecutable and should be.

I believe it does, and the constitution backs my opinion up on that. Harassment by youtube comments is petty.

Seriously, you should REALLY read the article. This is NOT about 'youtube comments'. This is about an real life person who had videos and commentary of herself posted online. That is slander, and slander is NOT protected speech. No matter how may times you baselessly claim it is. SLANDER IS NOT PROTECTED SPEECH!!!

You are making yourself appear quite ignorant. Read the ARTICLE!

reply to post by justadood


Just because we don't agree doesn't mean I'm not educated. Reserve the personal attacks for a less moderated forum. We'll never see eye to eye, nor persuade one another, so it's best we just agree to disagree, and let the readers of the thread weigh their own opinions on the subject taking into account the information we presented.

reply to post by againuntodust


How can you say that Bullying shouldn't be a legislative issue? It's been left in the hands of parent's before...has it gone anywhere? Bullying is turning into pure torture for these kids. It's not just someone making fun of how your nose looks or your lisp or any other flaw. It's turning into threats, stalking, battery, hate websites, and leads to suicide. Do you not read the headlines that pop up every few months? The string of teens driven to suicide by bullies? Do you ever sit and wonder why these kids are going so far? In my opinion, it's because they don't face responsibilities for their actions. If an adult were to bully another adult to the point that these kids bully other kids... it would be called harassment and the authorities would get involved. The worst part about this is that now this has moved to the internet...Now it's not just about rumors in schools. These rumors are posted for the world to see. For a future employer to see. For colleges to see. I'm paying the government to protect me and my rights. The fact that they did just that for this woman means that they actually did for once what they were supposed to. This has nothing to do with taking away our rights. They did exactly what they should have done in this situation. You can't get away with doing wrong just because you are protected by a monitor and we can't see your face. When you hurt people you lose your right to privacy. Just because they helped a woman achieve some type of justice.. does not mean I'm going to allow them to take away my privacy when I'm doing nothing wrong. So don't you worry about this letting them allow to take away my rights. My rights.. and these harasser's rights... are two different stories.

reply to post by againuntodust


Slander. Libel. Harassment. All actionable by the courts if proven.

reply to post by justadood


Yes actually, because I was pretty dumb during the last pres election, and befriended over 1000 people that I thought were part of the freedom movement on myspace. I had some insane woman posting all kinds of # about me, including that I was a deadbeat father to their baby FFS... I have never slept with an old ass woman, let alone slept with any woman without a rubber. I have since abondoned the myspace page, and moved on to facebook, where I only friend people that are family, or that I knew quite well back in the day.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
It was about more than just being called a "whore" once on youtube...

I beleive everyone who has ever been trolled on teh webs should get justice. Her included.

We should start with all the famous people who have been trolling my United States of America.

I'm not here to deprogram anyone. Believe this is about anything you want.
But there is a place in all our futures where my advice will make
all the sence, and the counter arguments none at all.

Your welcome.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by againuntodust
reply to post by justadood

 

Just because we don't agree doesn't mean I'm not educated. Reserve the personal attacks for a less moderated forum.

I have not attacked you. Not at all. I suggested you were ignorant on the subject of slander, free speech, and the specifics of the article on the OP, based on the total irrelevance of your posts in relation to the OP.

We'll never see eye to eye, nor persuade one another, so it's best we just agree to disagree, and let the readers of the thread weigh their own opinions on the subject taking into account the information we presented.

Well, we COULD see 'eye-to-eye' if you chose to educate yourself on the difference between 'Free Speech" and slander.

reply to post by justadood


I agree with againuntodust on this one. Just because this person has a different opinion than you and I doesn't mean they deserves to be called ignorant. That was kind of uncalled for...and didn't really help prove the point. It was just kind of rude..

Originally posted by justadood
Seriously, you should REALLY read the article. This is NOT about 'youtube comments'.
You are making yourself appear quite ignorant. Read the ARTICLE!

edit on 22-10-2010 by justadood because: (no reason given)

What, this article?

In August, Carla Franklin, 34, a New York business consultant and Columbia Business School graduate, filed legal documents asking Google to identify people who posted unauthorized videos of her on YouTube and called her a "whore."

Posting videos of people fully clothed without their consent on a website, where no profit is made from it, is not illegal, and should not be illegal. Now when you start using someone's likeness to earn profit, we can talk about court proceedings

Originally posted by davidgrouchy

Originally posted by LadySkadi
It was about more than just being called a "whore" once on youtube...

I beleive everyone who has ever been trolled on teh webs should get justice. Her included.

We should start with all the famous people who have been trolling my United States of America.

The untied states are NOT a person, and NOT protected by law from slander.
Also, she was not 'trolled'. she was harrassed. her REAL NAME.

Originally posted by LadySkadi
reply to post by againuntodust

 

Slander. Libel. Harassment. All actionable by the courts if proven.

You are correct. I just disagree with the first two.

reply to post by IzzycomesinPeace


It is because parents of those wimps, either don't raise their kids at all, or raise them to be wimps.

Originally posted by againuntodust



Posting videos of people fully clothed without their consent on a website, where no profit is made from it, is not illegal, and should not be illegal. Now when you start using someone's likeness to earn profit, we can talk about court proceedings

posting commentary that the courts interpret as slander is illegal, and that is the question at hand.

tell me, if someone was posting harrassing videos of your MOM, from the safety of anonymity, would you not want to law to step in and enforce the law?

Originally posted by IzzycomesinPeace
reply to post by justadood

 

I agree with againuntodust on this one. Just because this person has a different opinion than you and I doesn't mean they deserves to be called ignorant. That was kind of uncalled for...and didn't really help prove the point. It was just kind of rude..

Ignorant merely implies a lack of education on a subject-which the person in question was clearly displaying. i was not rude. IT was a statement of fact.

That's what we do here: Deny Ignorance. It's in the tag line, fer petes sake.

buy a dictionary.

Originally posted by justadood
The untied states are NOT a person, and NOT protected by law from slander.
Also, she was not 'trolled'. she was harrassed. her REAL NAME.

It isn't?

So there is zero connection between all the Media and Movies
produced over the last sixty years and the national debt.
Hmmm. Interesting. Yeah,
let's all give in to fame.

Not.


David Grouchy

reply to post by davidgrouchy


so, your argument is that the USA is a 'person'?

how so?

reply to post by justadood


The USA is a corp, and as such was awarded human rights by the supreme court.

Years before the game known as "World of Warcraft" was released
a huge conference of Lawyers met in New York to discuss the
future of online communities. Here are the salient details
that the public seems wilfully uninformed of.

A gold seller in a previous online game
was making 30k a year in real cashy money.
Someone online slandered him, badly, and on the forums.
Sales dropped. He was able to go to court, show lost wages, and sue for slander.

The lawyers explained to Blizzard that they should include the following language
in their end users agreement.

errr. brb. to finish

reply to post by davidgrouchy


And that is the entire point for the laws against libel/slander. It can have a real and immediate affect on a person's livelihood, both present and future (not to mention mental status) and that is not acceptable.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by IzzycomesinPeace

 

It is because parents of those wimps, either don't raise their kids at all, or raise them to be wimps.

That's interesting.
www.nydailynews.com...
Wow, what a wimp... Rape, bodily injury, stalking, criminal harassment. These High School bullies shouldn't be charged, right? Those bullied kids are just wimps. Explain to me how I can raise my child in a way so that he won't get stalked...You know...to not be a wimp.