4 ms·

> only propagating their own agenda I am, no doubt about it. My agenda is freedom of speech and dealing with real-world, not virtual, problems.

by tomp 11y ago

jameshart 11y ago
Being the target of sustained harassment is a real world problem. You can't ask the women (And, sure, some men) who have been subjected to the troll-rage of the internet to just shake this off. What online harassers do needs to be treated as what it is: a deliberate attempt to harm another person. It needs to be subject to criminal sanctions. That doesn't mean I think websites need to become an arm of the state, it means I think the state needs to get a whole lot more tech savvy and figure out how to find and prosecute these idiots. I don't think that threatens freedom of speech.
- tomp 11y ago
  > It needs to be subject to criminal sanctions. So if someone is insulting you in public, you call the police? Or simply walk away?
  - jameshart 11y ago
    Not 'insulting', vividly describing violent fantasies about me? Yes, yes I would.
    - tomp 11y ago
      Well I sincerely hope that people like you don't start writing laws.
      - jameshart 11y ago
        Why are you so adamant about protecting the freedom of strangers to make someone's online life a living hell? To send them specific, personal, detailed threats? I don't understand why you believe that is 'speech' worth protecting. Sure, there's a line, and some behavior that people complain about as harassment doesn't cross that line, but some behavior is way out of order and should be stopped, with the force of law. Drawing those lines, between what is acceptable and what is not, is the job of laws. That isn't the top of a slippery slope, it's not the thin end of a wedge that leads to censorship, it's the way society functions.
        tomp 11y ago
        I can think of 3 main reasons: - in the vast, vast majority of cases, it's not as bad as they (you, feminists, the UN, the "victims") claim it is - the solutions they suggest are difficult to implement - for example, you would need to eradicate online anonymity - whereas my solution is very simple - use personal blocking software or, better yet, just ignore the trolls - both of the points above lead me to conclude that their goals are insincere - that they're using "harassment" just as an excuse to legalize and implement more censorship and restrictions that will be used for nefarious political causes, the same as happened before with e.g. the "threats" of piracy and pedophilia Edit: another reason is that I don't really recall many laws that made the internet better (DMCA, EU cookie laws, the "right to forget", Australia's blacklist), so it's seems unlikely that this time they will do it right
        rayiner 11y ago
        I think the idea that you can say things online that you couldn't say in person is going in the dustbin of history. I don't think that's a good thing, but it's not just "feminists" and the UN in that camp. As the Internet becomes just an extension of the real world, with broad participation from everyone, totally anonymous and consequence free speech likely won't be tolerated by the public.
        tomp 11y ago
        I don't understand... what can't you say in public? I mean, insulting someone won't get you thrown in jail...
        jameshart 11y ago
        You admitted at the top of this thread that you are minimizing online threats by calling them 'insults', and that you're doing so to push your 'free speech' agenda. You're doing it again, and it is growing tiresome. We aren't talking about 'insults', we're talking about sustained campaigns of intimidation using specific, personal threats. As an exercise, please, today, go out to a public space, pick someone at random, and follow them around for a half hour or so, hurling abusive, threatening language at them. Draw pictures of them being subjected to violent abuse and hand them to passers by. Follow them to their home, ring the doorbell, and when they answer tell them that they and their family aren't safe. I think you'll discover that your freedom of speech gets curtailed pretty quickly. Then explain why doing the same while following someone from Twitter, across internet message boards, and then calling their cellphone, is qualitatively different.

> only propagating their own agenda I am, no doubt about it. My agenda is freedom of speech and dealing with real-world, not virtual, problems.

by tomp 11y ago

> only propagating their own agenda I am, no doubt about it. My agenda is freedom of speech and dealing with real-world, not virtual, problems.

jameshart 11y ago

Being the target of sustained harassment is a real world problem. You can't ask the women (And, sure, some men) who have been subjected to the troll-rage of the internet to just shake this off. What online harassers do needs to be treated as what it is: a deliberate attempt to harm another person. It needs to be subject to criminal sanctions. That doesn't mean I think websites need to become an arm of the state, it means I think the state needs to get a whole lot more tech savvy and figure out how to find and prosecute these idiots. I don't think that threatens freedom of speech.

tomp 11y ago
> It needs to be subject to criminal sanctions. So if someone is insulting you in public, you call the police? Or simply walk away?
- jameshart 11y ago
  Not 'insulting', vividly describing violent fantasies about me? Yes, yes I would.
  - tomp 11y ago
    Well I sincerely hope that people like you don't start writing laws.
    - jameshart 11y ago
      Why are you so adamant about protecting the freedom of strangers to make someone's online life a living hell? To send them specific, personal, detailed threats? I don't understand why you believe that is 'speech' worth protecting. Sure, there's a line, and some behavior that people complain about as harassment doesn't cross that line, but some behavior is way out of order and should be stopped, with the force of law. Drawing those lines, between what is acceptable and what is not, is the job of laws. That isn't the top of a slippery slope, it's not the thin end of a wedge that leads to censorship, it's the way society functions.
      - tomp 11y ago
        I can think of 3 main reasons: - in the vast, vast majority of cases, it's not as bad as they (you, feminists, the UN, the "victims") claim it is - the solutions they suggest are difficult to implement - for example, you would need to eradicate online anonymity - whereas my solution is very simple - use personal blocking software or, better yet, just ignore the trolls - both of the points above lead me to conclude that their goals are insincere - that they're using "harassment" just as an excuse to legalize and implement more censorship and restrictions that will be used for nefarious political causes, the same as happened before with e.g. the "threats" of piracy and pedophilia Edit: another reason is that I don't really recall many laws that made the internet better (DMCA, EU cookie laws, the "right to forget", Australia's blacklist), so it's seems unlikely that this time they will do it right
        rayiner 11y ago
        I think the idea that you can say things online that you couldn't say in person is going in the dustbin of history. I don't think that's a good thing, but it's not just "feminists" and the UN in that camp. As the Internet becomes just an extension of the real world, with broad participation from everyone, totally anonymous and consequence free speech likely won't be tolerated by the public.
        tomp 11y ago
        I don't understand... what can't you say in public? I mean, insulting someone won't get you thrown in jail...
        jameshart 11y ago
        You admitted at the top of this thread that you are minimizing online threats by calling them 'insults', and that you're doing so to push your 'free speech' agenda. You're doing it again, and it is growing tiresome. We aren't talking about 'insults', we're talking about sustained campaigns of intimidation using specific, personal threats. As an exercise, please, today, go out to a public space, pick someone at random, and follow them around for a half hour or so, hurling abusive, threatening language at them. Draw pictures of them being subjected to violent abuse and hand them to passers by. Follow them to their home, ring the doorbell, and when they answer tell them that they and their family aren't safe. I think you'll discover that your freedom of speech gets curtailed pretty quickly. Then explain why doing the same while following someone from Twitter, across internet message boards, and then calling their cellphone, is qualitatively different.