A speed limit is imposed on the roads and highways, I suppose a speed limit on the trolls would help social calibration and still respect the rights of a troll.
You want laws specifically for internet trolls? :roll:
A speed limit is imposed on the roads and highways, I suppose a speed limit on the trolls would help social calibration and still respect the rights of a troll.
I think so, too. I was simply pointing out that discovering how to pinpoint someone to charge them with an offense like defamation, libel, slander, etc. is not that easy. Law enforcement has squads of people trying to track down sexual predators, scammers, and sleeper-recruiters. And even law enforcement's net experts have extreme difficulty catching people sometimes.Well, how about "Jim Smith of 1431B Main Street West, Youngstown Ohio, telephone 555-3838, is a lying, cheating scumbag who likes to have sex with goats and mushrooms."
Rights and privileges are quite different and very specific things in the eyes of the law. A right is something you have just by virtue of existing as a citizen of a particular nation whose social contract specifies that you have it. You have the right to legal counsel, for instance, if the judicial system decides it needs to chat with you. A privilege is something you have to qualify for and prove you can handle, like driving, or setting yourself up as a doctor. You have to pass a test and get a license, you don't have a right to those things. I dunno that it's ever been tested in the courts, but I'm pretty sure that your defined rights to privacy would be interpreted as meaning you have a right to anonymity.
lol I have no idea. Perhaps the same way that guy had sex with apple pie in "American Pie"? :?:And I'm still wondering how you could have sex with mushrooms.
roflmao So who would decide who was trolling and who was simply needling, joking, or using sarcasm?A speed limit is imposed on the roads and highways, I suppose a speed limit on the trolls would help social calibration and still respect the rights of a troll.
Right.Wasn't there a case last year or so, where some woman called a model a skank or something in a blog, and the blog owner had to cough up the user's identity, which resulted in a lawsuit?
So this case in NS is really nothing new.
The problem prosecutors have with proving slander, defamation, etc. is that the perp actually has the intent of defaming, libeling, etc. If the defense can show reasonable evidence that the perp really was under the impression that what he/she said/wrote was true there is no case. And the courts have to decide. And the entire thing is complicated when people attach two simple words to the fronts of their accusations: "I think".If you're going to go in a public forum and make allegations against a specific person, you'd better be prepared to defend yourself. It's one thing to make generalized insults against politicians, but, for example, to claim that a certain politician is a drug addict, without any evidence to support it, could get one into trouble. That's a fairly specific allegation.
Another stipulation for using a forum like this is that you'd be ejected for doing something illegal like plagiarism, libel, etc.What Curiosity wrote sparked a thought to me as well, that I haven't seen mentioned on this discussion yet: we're all making a concious decision when we sign onto a site like this to join in the discussions. The first rule of the internet (that I was taught when I was first logging on) was that nothing you post is private. And the fact that if you don't want to get involved in a discussion, no one is forcing or can force you to put out an opinion holds true as well.
In terms of my opinions, I'm not ashamed of 99% what I post in different forums. Most of it is the same stuff I would say to friends/acquaintances if we had the same discussions over a drink, coffee, dinner, around a campfire, etc.
I think the right to privacy includes anonymity. But, the right to privacy or anonymity ends at committing an illegal act.
Any name calling or other things like saying you are just a greeter at Walmart or even more insulting stuff, could not be liable because, you are not a known figure like a public personality......you are just a figment of my imagination....I think the right to privacy includes anonymity. But, the right to privacy or anonymity ends at committing an illegal act.
considering internet forums or sites, like the one we are on, are "privately" owned, our anonymity is a privilege.
This is also a commercial site......
Would it also depend on the laws of the country where the server is located????????????
Nonsense.But, the only way to find out if you are commiting an illegal act is by invading your privacy and investigating your life. Catch 22 I guess...
Perhaps. I met a guy that called himself Bill Gates online and he convinced people that he was really Bill Gates. I met another guy who said he was Hugh Hefner, and he wasn't so convincing. Who is to say which was telling the truth? How would you know I wasn't exactly who I say I am? How do you know that I am not the singer, Anna Gilbert?Any name calling or other things like saying you are just a greeter at Walmart or even more insulting stuff, could not be liable because, you are not a known figure like a public personality......you are just a figment of my imagination....
That is what I said when I outlined the problem the legal system has.Now if you could prove that I knew who you are and I say lies about you then you have a case,
Why would Interpol have anything to say about that? Google committed no crime. China was within its rights to deny Google business there. Google left. There's NO culprit.Yes. Take for example China and that Google conflict, every country has their own ways, but that's up to Interpol to decide who the culprit is.
"We"? Speak for yourself. What you said was nonsense because sometimes people actually do commit obvious crimes on the net and sometimes an invasion of privacy is just not necessary until the law shows up on someone's doorstep with an arrest warrant.Psychic are we then? ;-)
Perhaps. I met a guy that called himself Bill Gates online and he convinced people that he was really Bill Gates. I met another guy who said he was Hugh Hefner, and he wasn't so convincing. Who is to say which was telling the truth? How would you know I wasn't exactly who I say I am? How do you know that I am not the singer, Anna Gilbert?
That is what I said when I outlined the problem the legal system has.