I have never even heard of her before looking her up just now, but she is part of CNN...which is becoming the next FOX.
CNN is currently pandering to the Republican base because of their stupid presidential candidates and their dumb race to see who can lose to Obama in 2012. Good god, they're a sad lot (the candidates).
Oh yeah, anyways, the right to free speech has always come with limitations against harmful speech. The age-old example of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater when you know very well that there is no fire exists because of this.
Oh yeah, anyways, the right to free speech has always come with limitations against harmful speech. The age-old example of yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater when you know very well that there is no fire exists because of this.
Oh, I did. They're definitely stretching the definition of harmful speech with what they're proposing, but it's really no different than the outcry against Wikileaks. Even if it does get passed, the courts will strike it down.
The legislation had to deal with cyberbullying. In my opinion, if you are just being hurtful, you do not deserve to speak. That is why parents say, "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all". Especially since that kind of bullying leads to suicides among children.
Of course, that could easily be abused, so I do not really support it.
The legislation had to deal with cyberbullying. In my opinion, if you are just being hurtful, you do not deserve to speak. That is why parents say, "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all". Especially since that kind of bullying leads to suicides among children.
Of course, that could easily be abused, so I do not really support it.
That makes no sense. What you said means the only way to keep your right to free speech is not to use it. If you can't even use a right what's the point of having it?
That makes no sense. What you said means the only way to keep your right to free speech is not to use it. If you can't even use a right what's the point of having it?
No...not at all. You can still communicate online without being a cyber-bully. Anyway, I am out. Need some sleep. I see that I cannot get through to you on any of these things, and will probably not return to this thread...no point in useless arguing.
Now, of course, harassment is definitely not behavior that should be protected through free speech. The actions they're singling out come very close to the legal definition of harassment, so it makes sense that they're going to try and modify the definition of stalking to cover cyberbullying. Do note that the report specifies that, in order to be covered under the proposed change, the bullying must occur repeatedly over a period of time.
It's actually pretty specific. The more I read through the report, the more that article looks like a sorry attempt at applying an obvious spin to a story and then slapping a gotcha headline (that you copied verbatim) on it so as to prey upon the ignorance and laziness of their typical reader. Actually, that's exactly what that article is. It's pretty disgraceful, to be honest. You should feel bad for linking to it.
Now, of course, harassment is definitely not behavior that should be protected through free speech. The actions they're singling out come very close to the legal definition of harassment, so it makes sense that they're going to try and modify the definition of stalking to cover cyberbullying. Do note that the report specifies that, in order to be covered under the proposed change, the bullying must occur repeatedly over a period of time.
It's actually pretty specific. The more I read through the report, the more that article looks like a sorry attempt at applying an obvious spin to a story and then slapping a gotcha headline (that you copied verbatim) on it so as to prey upon the ignorance and laziness of their typical reader. Actually, that's exactly what that article is. It's pretty disgraceful, to be honest. You should feel bad for linking to it.
They're wrong, it's not, and thinking otherwise is not good for their long term popularity. Of course if my country the United States of America wants to go the full way into being a dictatorship, good for them. They already have the Military police force, so why not suppress free speech as well.
Trying to find a news station that is un biased is nearly impossible, thats why each week i watch different news stations and the internet to get all sides of the story. Because lets be honest- Fox and msnbc are both ****ed up(even though i prefer fox)
that article looks like a sorry attempt at applying an obvious spin to a story and then slapping a gotcha headline (that you copied verbatim) on it so as to prey upon the ignorance and laziness of their typical reader. Actually, that's exactly what that article is. It's pretty disgraceful, to be honest.
That's what news is. It's entertainment. The business of a news company is to sell advertisements. If you expect any major commercial news source to give you the unadulterated facts, that's simply quixotic. Go ahead and watch your preferred news show but if you want to know the facts, then look up firsthand sources on your own time (which is apparently what MrQuizzles did). Critical thinking requires, among other things, the absence of intellectual laziness.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
This enlightening post brought to you courtesy of a serious overabundance of free time.
a) Conservatives are not logical in my opinion. They've caused nothing but fear and discrimination in my life.
B ) Democrats are just spineless neo-liberals. Not leftists.
c) Freedom of Speech is the most important freedom there is.
Trying to find a news station that is un biased is nearly impossible, thats why each week i watch different news stations and the internet to get all sides of the story. Because lets be honest- Fox and msnbc are both ****ed up(even though i prefer fox)
If you happen to live in the northern US I would suggest the CBC, that's my normal source of information
If they had used the title "Democrats attempt to fight back against cyber bullying", this conversation would have taken a different course. As mentioned, free speech isn't as simple as "say whatever you want and nobody can punish you for it". The example of yelling fire in a crowded theater couldn't be defended by calling free speech, and most likely they would be indirectly banned from speaking like that again(via banning them from the theater). Likewise, cyber bullies should be indirectly stopped from performing their malicious activities, via revocation of the medium.
Really, all those things are about online bullying. I regard it as a plus that they mean to do something about it. It's simply disappointing how all the authorities in this country seem to look the other way when it comes to bullying. The specifications could use revising, though.
I have never even heard of her before looking her up just now, but she is part of CNN...which is becoming the next FOX.
CNN is currently pandering to the Republican base because of their stupid presidential candidates and their dumb race to see who can lose to Obama in 2012. Good god, they're a sad lot (the candidates).
Try looking up the show "The View". It airs on ABC and features the idiot Joy Behar.
I guess you didnt click the link did you?
Oh, I did. They're definitely stretching the definition of harmful speech with what they're proposing, but it's really no different than the outcry against Wikileaks. Even if it does get passed, the courts will strike it down.
The legislation had to deal with cyberbullying. In my opinion, if you are just being hurtful, you do not deserve to speak. That is why parents say, "if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all". Especially since that kind of bullying leads to suicides among children.
Of course, that could easily be abused, so I do not really support it.
That makes no sense. What you said means the only way to keep your right to free speech is not to use it. If you can't even use a right what's the point of having it?
No...not at all. You can still communicate online without being a cyber-bully. Anyway, I am out. Need some sleep. I see that I cannot get through to you on any of these things, and will probably not return to this thread...no point in useless arguing.
It's actually pretty specific. The more I read through the report, the more that article looks like a sorry attempt at applying an obvious spin to a story and then slapping a gotcha headline (that you copied verbatim) on it so as to prey upon the ignorance and laziness of their typical reader. Actually, that's exactly what that article is. It's pretty disgraceful, to be honest. You should feel bad for linking to it.
Soooo... scare tactics by the opposing party?
Typical.
occupywallstreet.org
it's okay, the internet has come to save the day.
That's what news is. It's entertainment. The business of a news company is to sell advertisements. If you expect any major commercial news source to give you the unadulterated facts, that's simply quixotic. Go ahead and watch your preferred news show but if you want to know the facts, then look up firsthand sources on your own time (which is apparently what MrQuizzles did). Critical thinking requires, among other things, the absence of intellectual laziness.
B ) Democrats are just spineless neo-liberals. Not leftists.
c) Freedom of Speech is the most important freedom there is.
Michelangelo
If you happen to live in the northern US I would suggest the CBC, that's my normal source of information
Really, all those things are about online bullying. I regard it as a plus that they mean to do something about it. It's simply disappointing how all the authorities in this country seem to look the other way when it comes to bullying. The specifications could use revising, though.