Former Australian Cop Wants Jail For Internet Trolls 254
beaverdownunder writes "A former police officer in the Australian state of Victoria has called on law enforcement to prosecute creators of hate pages on social media following Facebook's decision to close down a page mocking Jill Meagher, the 29-year-old Melbourne woman abducted and killed last month. Susan McLean, who spent 27 years with Victoria Police before launching her cyber safety consultancy three years ago, said police have the ability to prosecute the creators of pages that are in breach of Australian laws but appear to be unwilling to use it. 'There have been many cases in the UK where these people have been hunted down and charged and jailed. We need to do that in Australia.' Under section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, it is an offense to use 'a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offense,' punishable by three years in jail."
TROLL THIS MOTHERFUCKERS !! (Score:5, Informative)
Eat shit and die !!
Re:TROLL THIS MOTHERFUCKERS !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe it or not, I think the parent post was on topic.
Re:TROLL THIS MOTHERFUCKERS !! (Score:5, Insightful)
As an aussie I can tell you our police are idiots - this is proof. The simple fact she doesnt even know the definition of a troll, vs someone using hate speech shows how nieve she is. 3 years of xp eating donuts does not qualify you.
*shiver* (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is a big, mean, scary place full of ill-intentioned people who will take advantage of the uneducated and the less-vigilant.
s/people/governments/ig
Question: do you think it is easier to defend yourself against hateful onslaught by ill-intentioned individuals or against governments that will take away your life, liberty and property just because you aren't toeing the party line? Follow-up: what do you suppose are some of the best ways to defend against tyranny? /popcorn
Re:*shiver* (Score:5, Funny)
Follow-up: what do you suppose are some of the best ways to defend against tyranny?
Moat. Can't go wrong with a moat.
Re: (Score:2)
I fill mine with alligators. To ensure I am not liable I have signs posted every 5 ft that say "BEWARE OF MOAT ALLIGATORS".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's probably not enough to protect you from liability, because it doesn't adequately explain the danger of moat alligators. I'd suggest something like this.
BEWARE OF MOAT ALLIGATORS
MOAT ALLIGATORS ARE CARNIVORES
IF YOU GO IN THE MOAT THEY WILL EAT YOU
YOU MIGHT DIE
That might work.
Re:*shiver* (Score:5, Funny)
Also,
MAY CONTAIN PEANUTS
Re:*shiver* (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And someone will sue you because one of the signs fell on them.
Re:signs (Score:2)
Do the signs have rounded corners? Apple might become upset.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Follow-up: what do you suppose are some of the best ways to defend against tyranny?
Moat. Can't go wrong with a moat.
Yes you can! [poopreport.com]
Re:*shiver* (Score:4, Informative)
Not only do government officials get their own moats, the taxpayers have to pay to clean it [telegraph.co.uk]. "Cherchez le vache!"
Phillip.
Specially if its full of oil on fire... (Score:2)
Seriously...
The dweeb's trying to legislate humor.
Most of it is very human and always of dubious taste.
EG: After Columbia shuttle fateful meeting with a O-Ring weakness, what the FIRST THING I saw on the web? What does NASA stand for? "Need Another Seven Astronauts."
This is another futile attempt to regulate people reactions. (Ask the Taliban how their campaign to stop girls from getting an education's going...)
Re: (Score:2)
What does NASA stand for? "Need Another Seven Astronauts."
I had no access to a web or a BBS at the time, but that just caused a flood of ALL of the Challenger jokes that I knew to come flooding back. There were many of them, and virtually all of them were tasteless Christa McAuliffe jokes. I don't really think that could have possibly fallen under bullying at the time, but it seems that some lawmakers want to outlaw tasteless jokes, and with the remarkably broad language in the law as described, they may be able to try.
*shrug* (Score:4, Insightful)
Question: do you think it is easier to defend yourself against hateful onslaught by ill-intentioned individuals or against governments that will take away your life, liberty and property just because you aren't toeing the party line?
That depends very much on what systems of control and accountability are in place, in either instance.
E.g., I know that either an anonymous stranger or government agents can invade my home or remove my access to my own property. That said, I also know which is more likely to happen. I also know my chances of having such a wrong (if it is indeed a wrong) being redressed in either instance.
Bonus, I know which is going to help me right any wrong committed by the other.
I notice you specify "ill-intentioned individuals" and "governments". Perhaps you think all governments are "ill intentioned"? (Honest question). Personally, I don't.
Re: (Score:2)
"Perhaps you think all governments are "ill intentioned"? (Honest question). Personally, I don't."
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Re:*shrug* (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why the US government is dismantling the Bill of Rights piece by piece... not all at once, because "we know what's best." Fuck 'em. First we start by getting the weirdos... the people who post photoshopped images of Michele Obama dry-humping a fencepost. Then we start getting those "evil nasty pirates" who spread IP around like peanut butter. Then we go after those who aren't "tolerant" of others' beliefs and rituals.... then we get a police state that rivals Orwell's vision in size, scope, and efficiency.
So defending the trolls who are just being crass and crude is simply keeping our freedoms intact.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean, if you listen to the current political babblers on TV here in the US, you'd get the impression that they're downright flabbergasted that Romney isn't polling in the single digits or low teens. (I have one reason why... Obama killed an American Citizen with a drone.... pissing on the right of due process and innocence until proven guilty all in the name of "war on Terrah!")
Two thoughts. First, it does depend on the station. CNN's panels have a mix of Republicans and Democrats. MSNBC and FOX are apologetically biased (FOX going as far as to demonize the rest of the media). Second, why isn't this a campaign topic? Why hasn't it been in a debate or in a Romney speech? The only reason I can think of is that he doesn't disagree with it and would do more or less the same (probably less since the whole wouldn't-have-killed-Bin-Laden thing).
I'm not being dismissive; I really
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, not buying the slippery slope argument. Punishing internet bullies is no more likely to lead to totalitarianism than enforcing speed limits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Trolling is deliberate cruelty and harassment."
That sounds like a circular definition, and excludes normal "trolls" who are neither cruel or harassers, like our -1 friends here on /.
"It's an ABUSE of freedom and should be curtailed."
Do you see process and slippery-slope risks, if freedoms are taken away after someone simply _declares_ them "abused"?
Re:*shrug* (Score:4, Insightful)
ABUSE of freedom and should be curtailed.
They said the same thing about Playboy. They said the same thing about Gays. They said the same thing about violent films. (and still do). They said the same thing about cartoons of Mohammed. So, who's calling bullshit again? You're no better than the rest of the censors and "offended" if you can say with a straight face that curtailing freedom of speech because you think it's an "abuse" of freedom is a-ok and encouraged. That's the same tired argument I've heard for decades. It flies in the face of reason and what the hell freedom actually means.
The joy of the internet is you can turn it off. You can change the channel. You aren't forced to watch or read it. Freedom's a great thing, but you miss the entire boat. so I'm going to call bullshit here too, because the basic tenet of freedom of speech is that we support speech we despise. Supporting free speech when you agree with someone isn't freedom. You may not like it. Hell, I think it's distasteful... but I am not about to tell someone they can't do it because it is offensive or blasphemous. Because once you make the rules, those who you trample will come to power one day and use those rules on you.
I realize most of Europe and Australia don't have speech protections codified like we do in the US. That's a shame, because enlightenment means not burning down buildings when someone offends you. Europe claims to be more enlightened than the US when it comes to accepting things, but it seems the only thing they are "ahead" of the US on is boobs on TV (I give that a BIG thumbs up, btw) and sexual freedom (another thumb up! heh.) They clearly are battling puritanical nonsensical bullshit when it comes to offensive speech.
Re: (Score:3)
many of them are utterly mistaken about what Obama has done, and drone strikes are about 1000 steps down.
Yes, because it wasn't their son... Trust me, NO president should have that kind of power. I don't care if it's Reagan, Bush, Clinton or Obama. That is a breach of his office and should be punishable by trial and prison time. You also missed the entire point... but that's okay, the astroturfing obamites are everywhere these days. And for the record, I hate Romney just as much, because he's just a white Obama. Nothing will change under either's watch, but one thing is for certain... it has gotten WORSE under
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think there are very many governments out there that are truly "ill-intentioned." They're the ones you really have to watch out for.
Re: (Score:3)
Government: Necessary Evil.
I hear a lot of folks talk about "trusting" or having "faith" in government...and it scares the living daylights out of me. How anyone could possibly believe without a moment's thought (there's my answer) that any institution has their best interests in mind is utterly beyond me.
The institution, by definition, lives to support itself, and those that align with it. If you do not fall into 100% lock-step with said institution, it no longer serves you. Institutions do not serve ind
Re: (Score:3)
Far more people need to understand this and have the proper disregard for their "good intentions".
What far more people need to understand is that the American (or Australian) government is a democracy. You can point to several ways in which it is not functioning optimally, but they all boil down to the same problem -- a willfully ignorant and/or apathetic electorate. All the gripes about corporate influence, religious agendas etc., while valid criticisms of the status quo, reflect the same basic dichotomy -- either people don't bother to assess their own interests and vote accordingly, or they are and
Re: (Score:3)
Wow. Quite the jump you just pulled off there from words like "trust" and "faith", to "fear" and "dislike"... do that often??
Oh, and in focusing on your athletics you missed the point, though I repeated it at least twice:
There is not one person on this planet that feels the same way you do about *everything*. Therefore, not even you can support your institution 100%, as your "best interests" will not always equal the best interests of the whole...even in an institution of 2, such as marriage.
I never said
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(You need a refresher on what "democracy" actually means, and how it relates to constitutional republics, such as the USA.)
Re: (Score:2)
police have the ability to prosecute the creators of pages that are in breach of Australian laws but appear to be unwilling to use it
...because they know if they do they'll have every whining emo adolescent in Australia constantly on the phone asking them to "do something". Pretty soon the entire system will collapse.
Re: (Score:2)
Well. I have decided that at least here in the US I have already at times chosen not to say things do to fear of government (local, state, federal) reprisals.
On the current topic though...
Who is this storm trooping ex police nazi Susan McLean?
Is she that Susan McLean from Australia that killed 12 children and then ate their private parts?
Or
Is Susan McLean the Australian cop that "accidentally" killed 2 infants in a stroller?
Does Susan McLean have anything to say about her alleged rape 6 small boys in 1999?
I
Cause offense - go to jail (Score:3, Funny)
I know I'm wasting time and space, by pointing out that if this fascist law were to be enforced, that would be the end of free speech. This police woman's remarks offend me and have been published on the Internet, so when can I expert her to be prosecuted?
Re: (Score:2)
As a law abiding person, you should expect her to turn herself in.
Re: (Score:2)
Politicians???
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not in favor of jail time, but I wouldn't mind a Constiutional amendment allowing particularly egregious cases to be placed on the next national election ballot: "Shall soandso, who made fun of dying cancer child soandso2, be beaten by an orangutan?"
Fair go. (Score:3)
Do Not Want! (Score:5, Interesting)
a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offense,' punishable by three years in jail."
Cause offense? Your existance offends me! Your funny-colored hair offends me! The fact that you're a man, woman, human, or bovine offends me! See, that's the problem with "cause offense" -- it's entirely subjective. It depends on the recipient. No free country should have a law on the books claiming things that are offensive are illegal, anymore than people should be liable for the emotional reactions of others. When you make something criminal, you need to be specific about the behavior. "Entered house with force and intent to steal." That's provable, objective, and fairly unambiguous. "Caused emotional distress" can't be proven, it's totally subjective, and highly ambiguous. In any criminal test, you have to ask yourself: Could a reasonable person determine ahead of time that the behavior in question was (unambiguously) illegal?
Kill this law with fire, and while you're at it, tell the legislator to fuck off, eat a bag of dicks, and that his face is ugly. But be sure to put a smiley face at the end... we wouldn't want to sound... offensive. In other news, please enjoy this politically, culturally, and sexually correct joke:
___________________________________
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's offensive to drunk clergymen. I'm afraid you're going to have to go with:
Someone walked into a bar and said "Ouch!"
Re: (Score:2)
That's offensive to people who walk into bars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:5, Funny)
A minister, a priest and a rabbi went for a hike one very hot day. They were sweating profusely by the time they came upon a small lake with a sandy beach. Since it was a secluded spot, they left all their clothes on a big log, ran down the beach to the lake and jumped in the water for a long, refreshing swim.
Refreshed, they were halfway back up the beach to the spot they'd left their clothes, when a group of ladies from town came along. Unable to get to their clothes in time, the minister and the priest covered their privates and the rabbi covered his face while they ran for cover in the bushes.
After the ladies wandered on and the men got dressed again, the minister and the priest asked the rabbi why he covered his face rather than his privates.
The rabbi replied, "I don't know about you, but in MY congregation, it's my face they would recognize."
Re: (Score:2)
Let's stay on topic.
These are people who are misrepresenting the truth, often creating online profiles as people whom they actually are not, and that action is hurtful to society.
It's not a simple case of "I don't like that."
Done here.
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:4, Insightful)
These are people who are misrepresenting the truth, often creating online profiles as people whom they actually are not, and that action is hurtful to society.
If misrepresenting the truth is a crime, anyone who's a politician or politically active is a criminal. Creating online profiles as people who they are not means a lot of people who only use Facebook to play Farmville are now criminals. And my definition of hurtful to society depends on an objective, clear, and unambiguous hurt -- like cutting off someone's arm, stealing their car, etc. There's a clear loss there. "Someone lied to me!" isn't harming society to the extent that it needs to be regulated behavior.
And your definition completely omits from its definition of a crime the person's intent in doing those things. I consider that pretty important in determining what should be a crime and what shouldn't be. So do most criminal defense attorneys, judges, and law enforcement... they want to see criminal intent, not just "oops"
Re: (Score:3)
OK, but this is not trolling. This is bullying and/or harassment.
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:4, Interesting)
You countered your own argument:
"Could a reasonable person determine ahead of time that the behavior in question was (unambiguously) illegal?"
A reasonable person could. Sure as with all tests of reasonableness there's going to be a nebulous area between hey, that's ok, and hey holy shit you crossed a line. But so what? As long as the penalty for treading into the nebula is appropriate. (read: small -- community service, small fine, a warning the first time...) I'm fine with 'a test of reasonableness'.
No free country should have a law on the books claiming things that are offensive are illegal, anymore than people should be liable for the emotional reactions of others.
Right. As teens my friends and I thought it was hilarious to call that 11 year old boy a faggot every time any of us saw him - it was so funny we got the whole grade 6 to join in. It was just our thing. Why should we be at all liable in any way that it upset him to the point of depression and attempted suicide?
And now when I continually proposition my hot coworker for sex and compliment her ass? She should be flattered. But now I've got this sexual harrassment charge pending. WTF!
No free country should have a law on the books claiming that offending people are illegal, right?
So then I posted images of holocaust mass graves, except with little penises drawn on the bodies, and each one labelled a faggot. It was hilarious, so I posted it to the local jewish temple's public forum with the subject "the faggots deserved it"
Like what reasonable person could determine ahead of time that this was going to offend any one? Not me, that's for sure!
Now in all serious, I -am- a proponent of free speech, and I even defend our right to say something that offends, or even to be offensive.
But at the same time, I do think there should be tools in law for people to protect themselves from complete assholes who are just deliberately harassing them.
There IS a balance that needs to be struck.
Re: (Score:2)
Then make harassment a crime. This can be done without criminalizing any particular form of speech, thus preserving a right that should be absolute, and it has the added bonus of covering non-speech forms of harassment in the same law. The only losers in such an arrangement are the ones who want to silence people, and they deserve to lose.
The right to bear arms doesn't shield someone from committing crimes with a weapon. Neither need the right to free speech shield someone from committing crimes by speaking
Re: (Score:2)
Harrassment already is a crime. So we need to clarify what constitutes harrassment under the existing law to ensure the forms of harrassment I outlined are covered.
But then we're just splitting hairs on semantics and legal implementation. Posting offensive messages in a forum ends up a crime either way.
Re: (Score:2)
A reasonable person could.
So you really think if I round up a dozen people and ask them whether a given behavior is offensive, all 12 of them will agree in the substantial majority of cases that it's offensive (or not)? Because I've been watching the Presidential debates, and let me just say, even when not giving offense is at a premium, they're still regularly infuriating people in significant quantities. "A binder full of women" anyone?
Why should we be at all liable in any way that it upset him to the point of depression and attempted suicide?
Because being a douchebag isn't a crime. If it was, most of the people on slashdot would be on A
Re: (Score:2)
So you really think if I round up a dozen people and ask them whether a given behavior is offensive, all 12 of them will agree in the substantial majority of cases that it's offensive (or not)?
The substantial majority? yes.
I already stipulated there was a substantial grey area between "not offensive" and "obviously offensive".
And I already covered my ass there by stipulating that being "caught" in the grey area should be a misdemeanor at most, with even just a warning as a first "punishment".
You're interfer
Re: (Score:2)
And I already covered my ass there by stipulating that being "caught" in the grey area should be a misdemeanor at most, with even just a warning as a first "punishment".
I don't like the idea of anyone going to jail because what they did was in a "grey area". It doesn't matter the size of the grey area, the standard in law is beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard is we'd rather let ten guilty men go free than convict an innocent person. I cannot and will not accept your idea that there should be "grey area" crimes. "Well sir, you were close to the speed limit, so I'm going to write you a ticket that's close to the fine you'd get for actually speeding."
Wait what? I'm not interfering with their ability to work. Its "just" their "emotional reaction" causing any issues, and according to you I'm not liable for that.
It doesn't matter..
Re: (Score:2)
I don't like the idea of anyone going to jail because what they did was in a "grey area".
Copyright infringement depends on a jury interpreting whether your defense of what you did was fair use or not. That's often a grey area.
"Well sir, you were close to the speed limit, so I'm going to write you a ticket that's close to the fine you'd get for actually speeding."
The speed limit is not a grey area. Its posted and has a measurable number. (And in my opinion that's actually pretty unreasonable, because doing
Re: (Score:3)
Cause offense?
Offensive speech is the only kind that actually needs free speech protections. Nobody bothers to challenge speech that causes no offense.
Americans used to say, "I hate what you say, but I would die for your right to say it." Now it seems to be overwhelmingly, "don't rock the boat, man. What's on TV tonight?"
Re:Do Not Want! (Score:5, Interesting)
Americans used to say, "I hate what you say, but I would die for your right to say it."
Actually, that was Voltaire, a french man best known for writing such withering critiques of certain written works that the authors would commit suicide. He said "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Americans paraphrase it by just saying "free speech, fuck yeah!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because you didn't intend to kill him?
Wrong!
It's murder even if you only intended to commit serious harm (e.g. GBH). The reason for this ought to be obvious even to you.
not according to wikipedia (Score:2)
"Unlawful killings without malice or intent are considered manslaughter."
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the pushes for restrictions are after examples where someone deliberately targeted a person with the intent to cause harm, and succeeded in that goal. Then the whiners on Slashdot complain that you can choose what's offensive and the person harmed should have chosen to not receive harm from the person who intended them harm. Nice theory,
Sure (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow.... that is the joke. You realize that Australia's purpose for the British was to have an island to ship their criminals off to, right?
Re: (Score:2)
And before that it was Georgia, IIRC. Then they had a little spat over taxes and lost it.
Re: (Score:2)
And then the Australians found Tasmania.
Re: (Score:2)
They are on the B Ark and don't even know it.
Re: (Score:2)
The B ark is the most important, just ask us.....
Plus we get to live....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I use ninghys. Never had enough to make up a pugh though. My wallet is enormous.
Re: (Score:2)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke [tvtropes.org]
Mrs. McClean (Score:2)
Her husband married this hog
Cause' she was surrounded by fog
And now they live in a zoo
Sue me.
If you disagree with people today some call hate (Score:2)
Thereoughtabe (Score:2)
I find everything Susan McLean writes offensive.
If only there were someplace I could complain about her...
Start with real life trolls (Score:2)
Yes well (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck Mohammed Fuck Emo Bitches and Fuck You (Score:2)
I live to see you witness the sexual murder of your entire family before someone tears your eyes out with duct tape. Legislate that, cunt.
lock him up (Score:2)
Under section 474.17 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, it is an offense to use 'a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offense,' punishable by three years in jail."
I'm very offended that he would suggest this. In fact I find it menacing and feel harassed. Lock him up!
Arse about tit (Score:2)
In related news, the UK government chastened by the bad publicity following the needless prosecution of people exercising their free speech or even making jokes on Twitter, stated "There have been many cases in Australia where these people have not been hunted down and charged and jailed. We need to do that in UK".
The government has launched a three year inquiry into whether the use of common sense could be a viable tool to be used by the prosecution services in deciding whether to jail people for telling b
I'm not completely against this kind of law (Score:2)
- Defamation. If you maliciously spread false rumours about someone, that constitutes a crime in many jurisdictions.
- Perjury. You're not allowed to lie under oath.
- Causing danger to others (not sure about the English term for this). It might be illigal to shout "fire" in a
Someone wants something? (Score:2)
> Former Australian Cop Wants Jail For Internet Trolls
Why is this news? I know a woman who thinks everyone should get free gummy bears. Her opinion isn't important either.
Re: (Score:2)
The heading should be "Former Australian cop trying to drum up more business for her new company."
No Right To Not Be Offended (Score:3)
Are some of these sites people set up offensive? Sure.
Are some of the people who set up these sites horrible people? Probably
Should they be locked away for making a website? In most cases*, no.
* If the person is advocating violence then that should be an offense. You have the right to say "People in Group X are stupid." You don't have the right to say "Let's round up everyone in Group X and put bullets through their brains." In addition, some of the trolling goes beyond offensive comments and lands into scary. If you're tracking people down and posting Google Earth views of their houses, or publishing information about what school their kids go to, you've crossed the line and there should be some stalking/harassment penalties invoked. This would be above and beyond setting up a "So-And-So Is A Horrible Person" website.
Wanting (Score:2)
"...it is an offense to ... cause offense..." (Score:2)
Conveniently vague, isn't it? I'm sure it would never be abused, though.
While we're at it (Score:2)
Could we also actually PUNISH police when they do the wrong thing? Such as beating or even killing citizens.
Instead, we conduct investigations, the outcomes of which we already know (the officers are exonerated, more training and investment is proposed).
Twice this year I've seen senior police front the media and express their full confidence and support of officers accused of excessive force ... before an investigation, and before they've seen any footage of the event.
I'm all for paying police awesome salar
Societies are getting ridiculous (Score:2)
How the hell do you get bullied on the internet? seriously. How borderline retarded do you have to be to get bullied on the freaking internet? This isn't something that's face to face. Shit! Just delete your facebook messages, emails, etc... For crying out loud don't use your real fucking name on the internet, retards. I read somewhere where a 14 year old teen boy stripped on the web cam because some dude somehow forced him through the chat to do so, how the hell does this happen? Are humans really bec
In summary (Score:2)
A few things strike me about this article:
1. Does 474.17 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act _really_ try to ban "causing offence?" That offends me!
2. The media seems to be a bit mixed up about the differences between trolling, bullying, and harassment. trolling is all about getting a reaction, not even necessarily a negative one. A troll would go to an Apple forum and say "I want to buy a Galaxy Tab" and then enjoy the reactions of the forum users saying that it's a bad idea. A troll would go to Slashdot and s
An Aussie cop trying to cach a troll (Score:2)
If anything I do could be a crime... (Score:2)
If anything I do could be a crime, then I might as well do anything.
Re:end of slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
I would think a better definition of troll will be needed. If we use the Slashdot definition it would be prison for anyone who think Microsoft actually has some good products. Doesn't agree with RMS view of Free and Open Source Software. Likes patents. Doesn't consider Android Linux when talking about market share. Does consider Android Linux when talking about Free Software. Thinks Religion and Science can get along, or tries to defend their religion. Claims that New Technology is better the older version. Who didn't like "Cloud Technology" before RMS said it was bad. Who Likes "Cloud Technology" after RMS said it was bad. Doesn't jump to the worst possible scenario on a sliding scale argument.
If we used Slashdot definition in essence all the people who actually think for themselves without following the general consensus would be in prison.
Re: (Score:2)
"a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence"
Think cyber bullying, but as with most things related to the internet, there's a massive wide grey line here.
Re: (Score:2)
the general consensus
Police were "pretty much laughing there", she added.
Re: (Score:3)
"a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence"
Think cyber bullying, but as with most things related to the internet, there's a massive wide grey line here.
Pretty much no.
You are always welcome to state your opinion, but as soon as you start spreading lies, private nude pictures etc. with the purpose to cause grief for a specific individual, it's cyber bullying and should be punish accordingly, i.e. hard and with a vengenance. There's no grey area or line here. It's pretty much black and white. As soon as it gets personal you're over line in perhaps more than one way.
Any kind of bullying is repulsive and cruel, and the cyber version just adds cowardice to the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would think a better definition of troll will be needed.
No, even with an unequivocal definition of troll, this is still a horrible idea. Government censorship is more harmful than trolling.
No (Score:2)
We don't need a better definition, as the entire premise of restricting ones speech like this is ludicrous.
Re:end of slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, it'd be funny, if so many of you weren't actually stupid enough to believe this.
There's a lot of /. users. Anyone who gets some karma has mod points they can use. Anything you say will likely have someone who disagrees with you on this site. Unfortunately, some people are just a bit too quick with the "troll" tag on the moderation system. Usually other mods will compensate, but shit happens sometimes. That doesn't mean you're a troll, and no one (well, hardly anyone) thinks you're a troll unless you're actually trolling.
Some guy on another story was whining about how /. has this huge socialist bias and was made up of people who feel guilty working for corporations so they demand higher taxes and more restrictions on the GPL. He apparently just doesn't see all the libertarians cluttering up the place in here, just like you don't see all the anti-RMS, pro-Microsoft, and even pro-religion comments in here. They are there, and if they're in the minority, well, that's just the way it goes. You're going to have a minority any time there's more than a few people who disagree.
These posts are meant for discussion, not syncophantic circlejerking. People are going to disagree with you. Yes, some assholes are going to abuse the moderation system. If you don't like it, you're free to create your own private IRC channel and rant to yourself all day long where no one can disagree with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dingo(e)s (Score:4, Insightful)
Definition of GAOL;chiefly British variant of jail, jailer
Wouldn't 'jail' technically be a variant of 'gaol', not the other way around?