By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Anonymous fights Arizona censorship bill with 'butthurt form'

Tagged games:

Everyone knows that there exists not a normal person in US politics.

Even the ones that first appear sensible turn out to be completely deranged, ignorant, arrogant, defiant, stupid, lazy, useless...Well the list could go on and all the words on the list are negative.

...Except "patriotic", we won't forget that one. Sorry, I mean if you don't live in the US you won't be ALLOWED to forget that one.



Around the Network
fillet said:
Everyone knows that there exists not a normal person in US politics.

Even the ones that first appear sensible turn out to be completely deranged, ignorant, arrogant, defiant, stupid, lazy, useless...Well the list could go on and all the words on the list are negative.

...Except "patriotic", we won't forget that one. Sorry, I mean if you don't live in the US you won't be ALLOWED to forget that one.

I don't know.  Though I don't agree with him on everything I do like Dennis Kusninich.  Then again he got run out and lost his primary due to a shit ton of negative and untrue political adds against him... so...

The super negative campaign was weird too, considering Kaptur had the district advantage.

Exception i guess.



lol. Brewer will have to get a new fax number, and then just have to keep getting more and more new fax numbers as Anonymous finds them each time



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Shouldn't speech issues online apply the same way speech issues do in person? For instance slander and liable, or directed repeated attempt to create mental or emotion distress? I guess it would be similar to stalking if one was to specifically target a person. I think people just need to attempt to treat the internet more like they would a public gathering. Thinks like threats shouldn't be allowed, but insults are protected. The responsibility should lie on the internet user, they should know not to say incriminating things or to actively target someone. The internet is kind of like a tape recorder.

Annoying or offending someone isn't illegal in person, so it shouldn't be online. I guess someone could attempt something in claims court if they can prove the other person's actions caused them irreparably harm, but nothing more than that.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

Chark said:
Shouldn't speech issues online apply the same way speech issues do in person? For instance slander and liable, or directed repeated attempt to create mental or emotion distress? I guess it would be similar to stalking if one was to specifically target a person. I think people just need to attempt to treat the internet more like they would a public gathering. Thinks like threats shouldn't be allowed, but insults are protected. The responsibility should lie on the internet user, they should know not to say incriminating things or to actively target someone. The internet is kind of like a tape recorder.

Annoying or offending someone isn't illegal in person, so it shouldn't be online. I guess someone could attempt something in claims court if they can prove the other person's actions caused them irreparably harm, but nothing more than that.

Offending, no, annoying, yes (harassment, which is illegal if it is targeted, or simply disturbing the peace)

My issue, however, is that it should really be up to internet communities to self-police in matters like this. Internet users report offensive or threatening conduct and moderators deal with it, and if they do not, that community then collapses. It should only move into the legal realm if someone is clearly harassing you across multiple communities.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.