Trolls No Longer Welcome In New Zealand 270
An anonymous reader writes: Legislation designed to prevent cyber-bullying has passed its final hurdle in the New Zealand Parliament, making it a crime to send harmful messages or put damaging images online. The Harmful Digital Communications Bill passed 116 to 5. The Register reports: "The bill creates a regime under which digital communications causing 'serious emotional distress' are subject to an escalating regime that starts as 'negotiation, mediation or persuasion' but reaches up to creating the offenses of not complying with an order, and 'causing harm by posting digital communication.' The bill covers posts that are racist, sexist, or show religious intolerance, along with hassling people over disability or sexual orientation. There's also a new offense of incitement to suicide (three years' jail).
Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm offended by this bill and request the politicians be imprisoned.
Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, who is going to tell what constitutes "serious emotional distress"? Are we simply witnessing the creation of "a right to be offended", or a new era of psychologist judges?
I'm just wondering how the hell they plan to enforce it. From what I understand, it's already basically obligatory to use a VPN in NZ (e.g. to torrent or watch US netflix) so somebody using their VPN for trolling purposes doesn't seem far fetched.
Re: Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:2)
Good luck with your VPN. I've been in Australia for the past 2 months and VPN connections have been blocked nearly everywhere I have gone. NZ is the Canada of Australia, I have no doubt that they try to follow the leader and prevent the use of VPNs as well.
Re: Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:4, Interesting)
Bullcrap! (Score:3)
I use a VPN daily, as do many people I know here in Melbourne. Malcolm Turnbull (the federal communications minister and first heir to the Aussie throne) recently stood on the steps of parliament and strongly recommended their use as a privacy tool, his words were broadcast and dissected ad-nauseam all over the national MSM for days on end. I'm in my 50's, and sure, our current far-right government is the worst pack of amoral bullshitters I have ever seen
Re: (Score:2)
Define how vpn is being blocked.
An ISP would be giving up its carrier status if it interfere with user traffic.
This is NZ not the USA
Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:4, Insightful)
They don't
There is no intent for uniform of equal enforcement. It simply allows them to arrest who they want. Lets say two derps get into an argument on forums, about some politically relivant topic and it gets heated and words are exchanged that shouldn't have been. They can now pick and choose which one of them gets arrested, and who gets prosecuted.
Re: (Score:3)
No, because NZ isn't nearly as full of scum lawyers as U.S. there SHOULD hopefully be sense applied here.
Re: (Score:3)
People from the USA are always amazed when they hear anybody would try to enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter.
Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:4, Interesting)
People from the USA are always amazed when they hear anybody would try to enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter.
We're usually surprised when someone does either in any way not designed to be punitive.
Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:4, Interesting)
People from the USA are always amazed when they hear anybody would try to enforce the spirit of the law, not the letter.
Laws should mean what they say. If they mean something other than what they say, they should be repealed or rewritten. If the police can arrest you, not because of what the law is, but what that cop thinks the laws should be (the spirit), then you are living in a police state.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We have the first amendment... so... actually we're fine thanks.
Our government is constitutionally forbidden from passing such laws. *kiss kiss*
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:5, Informative)
NZ is a common law country so over time case history will begin to determine what the courts will see as problem material and what doesn't. I also suspect they will start near the bar of what would cause a problem if it was published in newspapers or on billboards. Something I'm sure there is existing case law about.
Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:5, Informative)
This sort of subjective law is actually quite common in Common Law countries, and seems to work reasonably well in practice. There are typically certain requirements, such as having to show actual harm took place (psychologist's report etc.) which means mere offence isn't enough. The prosecution would have to show, for example, that someone deliberately set out to harm a vulnerable individual.
There have been cases were people with existing mental illnesses have been driven to suicide. The people harassing them knew what they were doing. Society has an interest in protecting people from that kind of thing, because it's not a free speech issue. Harassment isn't free speech, it isn't necessary to allow it in order to allow full freedom to express unpopular ideas.
Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:4, Insightful)
In this case it won't work against trolls, though. They should have spent some time on Usenet to actually get a clue what trolling is.
There have been cases were people with existing mental illnesses have been driven to suicide. The people harassing them knew what they were doing.
If the law was motivated by this, then why do they not restrict the law to not allow knowingly trolling people with mental illnesses? A "do not drive mentally ill people into suicide" law might make sense, provided such cases are not yet covered by existing laws.
But that is not their motivation. The primary motivation is to get additional means for wealthy people (including, of course, politicians) to sue bloggers and critiques. Another motivation is to cover the politicians' asses under extremely rare circumstances when bullying creates some public outrage, which usually happens in the form of a witch hunt that blown out of proportions by the medias.
Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:5, Interesting)
You are looking at this from the wrong perspective, which is understandable given the US and NZ have completely different structures for how their laws are built.
Firstly laws in common law countries tend to be much much broader than laws in a legislative country such as the US. The expectation is that the courts will take the laws and interpret them and them implement those laws in accordance with precedents set in related laws. If the government or another party doesn't feel that the laws were applied correctly then the outcome will be appealed, potentially all the way to the high court.
As for your assertion that the laws will be abused by the wealthy it just wont happen. The courts in NZ and Australia are fiercely independent and has no qualms attacking political appointments or positions. To get some idea on the level of backlash that can occur have a look at the recent appointment of Michael Carmody to the position of Chief Justice in Queensland, He lasted 7 months. So if a wealth person or politician were to try to abuse these laws I think you would see them come unstuck real fast.
Re: (Score:3)
The USA is also a common law country.
Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:5, Interesting)
The US started as a common law country and its basis was the UK system however it has diverged significantly and is recognised as having significant components of civil law.
At the federal level there is no plenary statute which means courts at a federal level are unable to create precedent without that precedent being challenged. Although federal courts can create federal common law in the form of case law, such law must be linked one way or another to the interpretation of a particular federal constitutional provision, statute, or regulation.
This came to a head in the 1930s in Erie Railroad vs Tompkims. It also had the effect of showing federal courts had no authority over states if there was no federal impact.
In essence the US operates two types of legal systems. At a state level it is common law and at the federal level it is civil law.
Re: (Score:2)
All this changed when they gave the Obama the authority to enter into the TPP [wikipedia.org] last week.
NZ law is now US law: and US law is now NZ law
Treasurer for sale (Score:2)
No, it ISN'T free speech. (Score:3, Informative)
It's not YOUR definition in YOUR country's law as free speech, but that doesn't make it free speech BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE FUCKING USA!!!!!
Tell me, why is an act in the USA that, were it done by the government, is an infringement on free speech not so when done by a private corporation? It's the same fucking thing being done! "Because our constitution says so" is NOT an answer. Because it's the same answer that refutes your claim here: it isn't a free speech issue because the NZ law says it isn't. So give us
Re:No, it ISN'T free speech. (Score:4, Insightful)
Its because you have no rights to impose on other free people your freedoms and rights outside of what they are willing to allow through contract or good will where the government is bound to not use the force of law to restrict the same.
In other words, my rights do not create an imposition on you and the government cannot take them away. The US constitution recognizes the right already exists and bars government from infringement of it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nope, this isn't a free speech issue. Your post does not in any way, shape or form, constitute a counter to it, only a repeat of the canard of what YOU merkins maintain is "Free Speech" which is based SOLELY off your parochial laws.
Which only apply in the USA.
But you're so exceptional that your law should be universal because you're "gawd's awn cuntry!" and therefore inerrant.
Why should private individuals be allowed to restrict speech and then use government backed courts and police to enforce it and it NO
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's one big problem with your rant (and a lot of others but let's focus): God doesn't exist. There are provably only one right given by nature: the right of the strong, that is that a stronger party can suppress a weaker party. Nature in itself doesn't hinder this which makes it a "right" to be taken by, again, the strong.
But humans are moral beings - evolved due to advantages of the group rather of the individual. This means that most communities creates rules of what is considered a correct behavior.
Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! (Score:2)
The TPP [wikipedia.org] enforces the laws of any given country in another country under the partnership.
While everyone in the US was diverted by the Charleston church massacre and the misdirected angst over the Confederate flag: the Senate gave the US president authority to enter into this agreement.
If you live in Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Chile, Japan, the US or Canada: welcome to the pacific version of the EU!
Re: (Score:3)
The USA's famous "right" to free speech only applies to dialog between you and the government.
Other citizens don't have to put up with your bullshit and your right to free speech isn't being violated in the slightest when they tell you to STFU.
Re: (Score:3)
The USA's famous "right" to free speech only applies to dialog between you and the government.
Other citizens don't have to put up with your bullshit and your right to free speech isn't being violated in the slightest when they tell you to STFU.
And the government can tell you 'Murcans to exercise your 'free speech' in special fenced areas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:4, Informative)
Commonwealth countries also do not elect unqualified judges from the general population, they are appointed on merit and experience, not popularity.
Free Speech Zone: Act 1 (Score:2)
Speaker's corner in Hyde Park has been the icon for that tradition since the 1850's.
Speaker's Corner isn't anything like the out-of-sight, out-of-mind free speech zones in the United States [wikipedia.org], is it?
Re: (Score:2)
yes. There's about enough space in front of the podium for half a dozen people to stand. I say, if you're going to make noise in London there are better places to do it, such as right under Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square (I've done this, I managed to stop traffic and attract the attention of three or four stations' worth of Metropolitan Police officers). You can pack a fair few thousand people in there.
Re: (Score:2)
if freedom of speech is the right, then the obligation to accept the consequences of that speech has to go with it.
Which, to any right-minded individual, should make perfect sense.
Re: (Score:2)
(See paragraph 10 on page 3 of the ministry of Justice's briefing on the bill [parliament.nz]).
Re: (Score:2)
The claim is that it won't create "a right to be offended", because the term "Serious emotional distress" is supposed to exclude mere outrage. Nor embarrassment, anxiety or worry.
It always starts that way, and usually ends at "say anything that offends the ruling party and they throw your ass in jail". On the internet this seems to happen at internet speed, to. Most countries that forced ISPs to block a list of "child abuse/exploitation" IP addresses or site, which of course were not made public, only took 3 years or so before opposition party's material mysteriously was being blocked. Funny how that works.
The only real way to protect speech critical of the ruling party is to pro
Re: (Score:2)
Rubbish. Australia has a blocklist for illegal material and that has never been extended to political material.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which countries did that happen in? I know of lots of countries (pretty much all of them) that have anti-child porn laws. I know of very few that have anything remotely like an open internet and don't have a healthy opposition on it. So I'd like more than say 1 example, certainly something rising to most.
As for your general comment. Anarchy scares people do to violence. Attacks and harms they or friends suffer upsets people. It quickly creates situations where the environment is seen as unsafe and the
Re: (Score:3)
There have been 3 Slashdot stories about specific cases that I remember. (This isn't about "anti-child porn laws", but about very specific "block this list of sites at all ISPs" laws). I remember the UK for sure, the other 2 my memory fades on the details: it had become "oh, this shit again" by then. Give a crooked politician a tool like a blocklist and it will be abused.
Anarchy scares people
WTF is wrong with people these days? Any comments about "maybe a tiny bit less overwhelming government power" are always met with this
Re: (Score:3)
Oh? Familiar with safe spaces? "Triggering"? Colleges in the US are fraught with students claiming emotional distress over a speaker whose politics don't match the groupthink exactly. (This really happens). I can only hope this problem is contained to the US, but we've raised a large group of people so fragile that ideas contrary to their beliefs are considered emotional distress.
But what does it matter if the government is dishonest? Give a government any tool which allows them to jail someone for spe
Re: (Score:3)
The claim is that it won't create "a right to be offended", because the term "Serious emotional distress" is supposed to exclude mere outrage. Nor embarrassment, anxiety or worry. (See paragraph 10 on page 3 of the ministry of Justice's briefing on the bill [parliament.nz]).
Courts in the US award damages for serious emotional distress (or whatever you call it) over and above actual physical damages, so it can't be that difficult to work out the difference..
Re: (Score:2)
A judge. They's what the word means. They make judgements, it's their job.
Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:5, Insightful)
We do this with physical pain and damage for centuries. Choke someone for 15 seconds is treated differently than choking them to unconsciousness. If someone starts to show deep outward signs that they are harmed an it is clear the harmer knows this and continues they got prosecuted. The degree of prosecution depends on the degree of harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fee Fees Hurt? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, it may interest you to know that courts judging "emotional distress" is not some new Internet fad. In the year 1348 an innkeeper brought suit against a man who had been banging on his tavern door demanding wine. When the innkeeper stuck his head out the doorway to tell the man to stop, the man buried the hatchet he was carrying into the door by the innkeeper's head. The defendant argued that since there was no physical harm inflicted no assault had taken place, but the judged ruled against him [ de S et Ux. v. W de S (1348)]. Ever since then non-physical, non-financial harm has been considered both an essential element of a number of of crimes, a potential aggravating factor in others, and an element weighed in establishing civil damages.
This does *not*, however, mean that hurt feelings in themselves constitute a crime. It's a difficult and sometimes ambiguous area of the law, but the law doesn't have the luxury of addressing easy and clear-cut cases only.
As to why a new law is need now, when the infliction of emotional distress has been something the law has been working on for 667 years, I'd say that the power of technology to uncouple interactions from space and time has to be addressed. Hundreds of years ago if someone was obnoxious to you at your favorite coffeehouse, you could go at a different time or choose a different coffeehouse. Now someone intent on spoiling your interactions with other people doesn't have to coordinate physical location and schedule with you to be a persistent, practically inescapable nuisance.
Does this mean every interaction that hurts your feelings on the Internet is a crime? No, no more than everything that happens in your physical presence you take offense at is a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
It's about as meaningful a term as the one they use in the UK public family law as a threshold to steal children - "risk of future emotional harm". If you can define "serious emotional distress" in clear legal terms, you should also be capable of defining "risk of future emotional harm" - something no legal entity in the UK has EVER managed to do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole point of passing laws like this is to encourage people to attack one another, preferably in the form of class warfare. Populations fighting themselves tend to ignore the tyrants at the helm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The whole point of passing laws like this is to encourage people to attack one another, preferably in the form of class warfare. Populations fighting themselves tend to ignore the tyrants at the helm.
You appear to be using some strange American interpretation of the term "class warfare". In fact, class warfare is precisely the mass of the population fighting against the elite tyrants, i.e. workers against capitalists in Marxist terms.
People in the US get confused and think that everyone is now a capitalist (billionaire-in-waiting) and that therefore class warfare is just smaller capitalists against bigger capitalists. In fact, it is only the very rich who have power. Owning a mortgaged house and ha
Re: (Score:2)
funny that, by definition you don't own the mortgaged house, the bank does. You're only occupying it and by extension, looking after it for the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In fact, class warfare is precisely the mass of the population fighting against the elite tyrants, i.e. workers against capitalists in Marxist terms.
That's always the official story. In practice, an environment of constant fear and distrust is created as the instigators use class warfare to set the population against itself, throwing the country into chaos, giving the instigators more favorable odds for their coup against the existing elite.
You appear to be using some strange American interpretation of the term "class warfare".
No, he's just saying it like it is. Here's a shot in the dark: maybe he knows about the post-war "liberation" of China, where [Peasant A], who owned one cooking pot, would accuse his neighbor [Peasant B], who own
You Owe Me An Apology (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Slippery slope (Score:3)
While I welcome the spirit of the legislation I am concerned about the enforcement.
You will be quick to note the rather dubious "serious emotional distress" and "causing harm by posting digital communication." -who determines this?
While I can absolutely understand making sure no racist, sexist etc posts are discouraged if not eliminated what's this "religious intolerance" nonsense? -If enough people claimed to believe in someone, no matter how absurd it can officially be recognised as religion. Why does this deserve special rights?
If you think about it, when someone says something and another person is offended it's not clear cut who has it wrong. Did the person intend to offend? was it that you disagreed or are of a gentler nature? did he speak in anger or while intoxicated? -factors that need consideration.
I really hope this bill will be implemented in a measured manner. I can see any number of groups pursuing lawsuits due to some of these items.
Re: (Score:2)
A judge determines it by assessing the evidence.
Re: (Score:3)
As I posted above the bar for where something is deemed to be an issue will be determined by case law. Given NZ is a common law country they will build precedents around what is ok and what is not. The tricky period is now when legislation has been passed but there are not enough cases tried to know where things will sit.
Re: (Score:2)
You will be quick to note the rather dubious "serious emotional distress" and "causing harm by posting digital communication." -who determines this?
I guess it willbe determined in a similar way to how different grades of physical assult are determines.
Re: (Score:2)
One can question beliefs in ways that are respectful, humane and polite. There is no need for "i disagree and here is why" to involve rudeness. Religious beliefs are deeply held beliefs that people are going to have a lot of trouble questioning. For example in this post you immediately held a belief that ra
Re: (Score:2)
OK. I find the belief in unfounded god/s is one of the leading causes of murder, rape and mutilation etc throughout history. It has also repeatedly held humanity's progress back and tend to be non-democratic and unreasonable in nature having no place in schools or modern life in general.
I argue that if there was a god he/she/it would not need any believers nor would he need them to be offended to defend his/her/its name or honour.
Furthermore as the very nature of a supreme being/entity is knowledgeable
Re: (Score:2)
I find your first 3 paragraphs uninformed and full of fallacies. But they were expressed politely and inoffensively. Proving that it is quite possible to do.
___
Paragraph 4 isn't true, you don't believe in pink unicorns. The pink unicorn was always an atheist analogy.
Paragraph 5 I'm not clear what that even means. There is a fallacy of equivocation regarding the meaning of "denying the holy spirit". blasphemia cannot be translated the way you are using it.
Re: (Score:2)
None (atheist, agnostic, no religion don't know, don't care) acts like a religion in the USA demographically. Atheism acts like a denomination. within that. It constitutes a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
I don't see any particular reason not to treat it like a religion. It walks like a duck and quacks.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it does. Atheism implies belief in: empiricism, naturalism, evolution and humanism. Which is not to say all atheists believe all those things fully, the same way that not all Christians believe in the virgin birth. But it is to say that there is a nexus of beliefs around atheism.
No there are many religious people who believing in the big bang. What the big bang is though is a key component in an evolutionary theo
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
a-theism meaning non theism is not the same as atheism the cultural construct. When people talk of atheism they mean the cultural construct, atheism as it exists not atheism as it might exist in theory.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a terrible law. The left and feminists in particular are infamous for instantly branding any disagreement, no matter how justified and rational, as hate. They'll damsel like crazy, weep crocodile tears and fire up a twitter mob, and next thing you know any objections to their brand of vicious insanity are stamped out. This law needs to be repealed immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
You might have a case. You're clearly suffering from serious emotional distress. The only question, of course, is if the bogeymen causing you such harm are real or imaginary.
Re: (Score:2)
Concern troll is concerned.
causing serious emotional distress? (Score:2)
Will the evening news be illegal? Wishing someone a happy 30th birthday? Mentioning that Christmas is over 'til next year?
Though, apparently it's legal if you do it in analog.
Re:causing serious emotional distress? (Score:5, Funny)
I find your lack of faith disturbing... so I will sue you for emotional distress.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't even do a force choke to bring the disbeliever back in line he has every reason to lack faith.
Re: (Score:2)
Can I get the force of law behind my imaginary friend?
religious intolerance (Score:2)
Does "religious intolerance" include anything promoting religion?
Because that is quite insulting to me as an atheïst.
Or does this protection only apply to people who believe in deities?
Do these people somehow deserve more protection?
And if so, why?
Re: (Score:2)
Religious intolerance is already defined in other pieces of legislation and it would not stop you telling someone you thought they were brain dead for believing in a god. And they have every right to say you should convert to their faith.
Religious intolerance, rather, is when a group (e.g., a society, religious group, non-religious group) specifically refuses to tolerate practices, persons or beliefs on religious grounds (i.e., intolerance in practice). So this would be where you are attacking someone for
Re: (Score:2)
Had no idea what kapporot or shechitah was so I had to look them up. From what I read Shechitah is just another term for Kosher slaughtering and im going to guess your issue is with killing a chicken rather than someone giving away coins in Kapporot.
Therefore I'm assuming you are arguing that slaughter of animals for food via kosher means is materially worse that other methods. And materially worse enough that you think that attacking those people who follow that practice is rightly justifiable?
As for the
Re: (Score:2)
Does "religious intolerance" include anything promoting religion?
Short answer, no. Longer answer. Promoting does nothing against other religions while intolerance does. Inviting people to service to hear a sermon is promoting. Not allowing a mosque to be built because you don't like the religion is intolerance. Sorry but promoting a religion is not an insult.
Or does this protection only apply to people who believe in deities?
I doubt it. I bet religions like Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism would qualify.
Re: (Score:2)
Religious intolerance and promoting a religion are not the same thing.
Let's do this for atheist.
X posts anti-atheism arguments based on Hume and presents apologetics for Christianity over atheism. He debates atheism strongly but politely. X is promoting religion.
Y posts false and inflammatory things against the Humanist society in his town. After publishing these things he publishes people's home addresses. He encourages harassment of their children at school. People feel harassed and quit the humanist
Fools getting the government they deserve (Score:2)
Congratulations Kiwi's, you've created a regime under which all speech is now subject to state approval.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Umm, no. You are free to post/say whatever you want - the 'State' doesn't approve anything.
You just need to be aware that if it causes 'Severe emotional stress' and a judge (and possibly jury depending on the incident involved) decide you had malicious intent you will be punished.
I'm a Kiwi living abroad. I'm always amazed at the way that some countries decry things like this....in New Zealand this would be looked at as a common sense type of thing. i.e. If you are stupid enough to try and convince someone
Re: (Score:2)
If you are stupid enough to try and convince someone to suicide and they do (as an example), you are an idiot and will get the book thrown at you.
Sorry, but you're the fucking idiot who thinks that censoring some speech isn't inevitably going to lead to censoring of other speech, or for that matter, that your WORDS should get you into criminal trouble because it hurts somebody else's feels. You guys wanna do away with free speech? Then you're idiots, and I'll fight it where I live for as long as I live an
Religion is a choice! (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does religion get lumped in with race and sex. Religion is a choice and does not deserve to be put next to things that you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Religion has a strong serial correlation between parent / child like most inherited cultural traits. There is no evidence it acts like a choice. Stop letting your biases cause you to ignore evidence because it disagrees with your ideology.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop letting your biases cause you to ignore evidence because it disagrees with your ideology. ...is what you need to be telling religious people.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony was intentional.
Re: (Score:3)
Why does religion get lumped in with race and sex.
Because it was in fact the whole point of this action.
Re: (Score:3)
Some might claim that's true of sexual preference as well, so do we lump homophobia with racism or religious-intolerance?
FWIW I know language is mutable and maybe I'm just behind the curve, but does "troll" now officially mean "anyone who says anything I don't like on the internet"?
It used to be a far more subtle definition, of someone who would post something (occasionally hurtful yes, but frequently the better trolls would use a sort of straw-man sympathic post) *specifically* to draw out a reaction, thus
Re: (Score:2)
Religion is a choice in the same sense that homosexuality is a choice: You can chose to pretend to be what you aren't and to believe what you don't.
The AC is right. Belief isn't subject to the will. You can't simply start and stop believing anything, religious or not, of your own volition.
Give it a try.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Belief isn't subject to the will. You can't simply start and stop believing anything, religious or not, of your own volition.
Give it a try.
Really? I wonder how there are atheists, as almost every child is inculcated with their parent's religious beliefs. I certainly became one of my own volition, long before there was an internet, or even another person to influence me. Any belief is subject to change, as long as the holder is willing to examine and question it. Give it a try.
Well thats Peter Jacksons next film screwed (Score:2)
Guess he'll have to film it in Australia. They've certainly got enough hairy footed types to fill in for hobbits.
Doesn't Go Far Enough (Score:2)
"The bill covers posts that are racist, sexist, or show religious intolerance, along with hassling people over disability or sexual orientation."
That doesn't go far enough. Some trolls harass over other things. Trolling and stalking need to be clamped down on.
God bless the First Amendment (Score:2)
Do you want to live in a world where you can't call some fuckwit a cocktoddler?
I don't.
'MERICA! :P
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
the real target (Score:2)
political dissenters.
Let's face it, no Government likes it when informed people share their information (that more often than not pulls back the curtain on the blatant criminality perpetrated by Agents of State), backed up with evidence, when all the State has is spin, distraction and empty rhetoric, which very quickly devolves into threats of imprisonment and other deprivations and superinjunctions - which, like Fight Club, I'm not allowed to talk about...
Re: (Score:3)
And when this comes to America, I'll be heading out
To where? Mars?
This idiocy seems to spread like a virus. It will cover the Earth, faster than sane people can stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
No, in this case I stand for what I say.
BTW, it looks like your sarcasm detector is defective.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm used to offensive lawyers, got even complains from Kendrick Moxon in the 90's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendrick_Moxon) when anti-scientology websites were the issue of some lawsuits here. I survived that, so I'm affraid there won't be much lawyers who can intimidate me anymore. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the lawyers are your best defense in this matter. The people you need to be worried about are the politicians and the judges.
The Lawyers always get a bad rap for using laws the politicians put into law or for winning a case that the JUDGE rules on.
Is it the lawyer's fault if he makes a silly argument and the judge actually buys it? Who's job is it again to not let crap get through the courts? Not the lawyers. That's on the judges. Trust me... world is full of a lot of lazy stupid judges. Ask yourse
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They all seem to fit so well...
Well done, you win the internet today.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, here are the old school definitions:
http://www.catb.org/jargon/htm... [catb.org]
It's a shame that the term for something annoying but ultimately harmless (and on occasion quite witty) has been hijacked as a term for unacceptable abusive behaviour.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay troll...
333 Olympic Drive Santa Monica, CA 90401
do your worst.