Judge Rules Web Commenter Will Be Unmasked To Mom 404
LegalReader writes "An Illinois judge has decided that an anonymous commenter on a newspaper website will be unmasked, even though the mother of a teen about whom 'Hipcheck16' allegedly made 'deeply disturbing' comments hasn't yet decided whether to sue over the posting."
The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:2, Insightful)
One reason freedom of speech needs to be protected is because it takes away an argument for anonymity - that anonymity is necessary for
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:5, Informative)
This is the "end" of a chain of lawsuits. The court has already ordered the newspaper to release the guy's IP address, and they did. The court has already ordered Comcast to release the identity of the guy who was using that IP address and they did.
So the court knows who the guy is and the guy is represented by a lawyer. She can go ahead and sue 'John Doe' based on the information the court already possesses if she really thinks she has a case. There is really no reason for the mother to know the guys identity other than to personally harrass him (presumably as this was a debate over a local election the guy lives in her district).
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, if she's not decided to sue, she shouldn't have been allowed to get this far. Doesn't matter if she "sued" the other info out. If she's not sure if she's to pursue a case against the person who posted the commentary, all of this is merely discovery without a case associated with it. You either know you're going to sue and then change your mind later (allowed...called a dismissal...) or you don't know and don't have a case yet. If she's lacking a civil suit for the comments in question, she shouldn't be allowed a fishing expedition- which is what this is right at this point without one.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
i can't tell if you're being sarcastic; however, combining your post with the quotation leads me to believe that you might not understand what freedom means.
freedom means the freedom to make your own decisions, even if i don't agree with them. if someone can't handle that, perhaps they need to live in a tightly restricted community, or under a tyrant.
Re: (Score:2)
So now nobody in America can make a joke online without fear of a court case??
Re: (Score:2)
So now nobody in America can make a joke online without fear of a court case??
I think the problem here is that the comment is potentially libelous, but it might not be possible to determine that without knowing who the source is. Suppose person "A" made an accusation that person "B" is a serial rapist. It is possible that person "A" knows person "B", and the statement is factual. If person "A" is just some random creep that doesn't know person "B", it is most likely the case that the claim is libelous. It's true that person "A" could know person "B" and be making a libelous statement
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, do you have a source for this? That if someone says something that is proven to be true, they can still be found guilty of libel on the grounds that they probably didn't have proof of it themselves at the time that they said it?
No. I didn't say anything like that. The only thing I said was that the burden of proof is different in a criminal case versus a civil case. If I were to make a claim in a local newspaper that you were a pot dealer (even though I have no evidence of the matter or not), and it was proven that you in fact were, I couldn't be found guilty of libel.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's funny how people have forgotten the events of history.
Oh sure you'll probably say, but that was the Cold War, many years ago and 10,000 miles away. No actually it was right here just a few months ago. "Bush is a lousy president, and this war is a war against my people - Muslims." (knock knock knock). "Open up! You're going to Gitmo where you will be held without trial for many years."
Anonymity is the last resort to protect you when presidents/leaders are acting like tyrants.
This is not jus
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's funny when people think "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want to anyone, anytime, anywhere, and they can't stop me." You're very mistaken if you believe this.
It's a good thing he didn't say that. He talked about making a joke, which is reasonably covered under freedom of speech.
(And most probably, also very immature)
Oh, so you think it's okay for you to say whatever insults you like?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think it's funny when people think "freedom of speech" means "I can say whatever I want to anyone, anytime, anywhere, and they can't stop me." You're very mistaken if you believe this. (And most probably, also very immature)
Yeah, I guess it would only mean that in a society that is actually free. You would have to be pretty immature to believe that about the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Posting with your real name is not the problems. Idiots like French and former-EU President Sarkozy, or former President Bush, who will use your speech to throw you in jail - they are the problem.
Anonymity is the last resort when they take-away your right to speak freely. Anonymity allows you to exercise your inalienable right without fear of the men in black dragging you off to jail.
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:5, Insightful)
If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone.
Sorry, but you're profoundly ignorant of how the legal system works. She wants to know if he has any money, if it would be monetarily profitable to sue. Its an investment decision. If he/she is "judgement-proof" or "rich enough", she won't bother. If "mother" can ruin their life simply by filing suit, "mother" will. The justice system is all about money...
Guarantee step #2 after determining identity is deciding how to make the most money.
In a way, its a profoundly stupid tactic for the mother to follow, because either she'll discover theres no point in suing, or the defense will use the fairly obvious argument that the plaintiffs is unhurt, because her claimed pain is suspiciously directly proportional to the defendants bank account. Or, if he/she gets blackmailed, there is now a legal trail showing mother did it. An effective way to win the battle and lose the war.
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:4, Insightful)
the defense will use the fairly obvious argument that the plaintiffs is unhurt, because her claimed pain is suspiciously directly proportional to the defendants bank account.
Arrrgh rephrased,
"the defense will use the fairly obvious argument that obviously the plaintiff was unhurt, and remained unhurt until she determined the size of the defendants bank account, at which time she felt like grubbing some money"
Re:The judge seems to be entirely right (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm... yeah dude, it does. Anonymity can be CRUCIAL to free speech -- there are certain things that we all wish to express and say about others and about the society around us that we cannot say in public. There is no freedom when a judge can read an Internet posting and immediately, like R. Lee Ermey at the beginning of Full Metal Jacket, bellow "WHO THE FUCK SAID THAT?!" This can lead to all sorts of bullying and abuse by the powers that be and will in the long run have a powerful chilling effect on free speech.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is surely the correct decision. In order to decide whether to sue, the mother needs to know who she might be suing.
No, she doesn't. You file against John Doe and then enter a process to discover the name.
If the poster is autistic, disturbed or perhaps already in the court system for other offenses, the mother might decide to leave well alone. If the only way that she can obtain the identity is to file a suit, then there is no escape from legal proceedings.
No, there is an escape - you drop the case. It's not hard. You file a motion to dismiss, the defense agrees, laywers get their fees, everyone goes home.
PS - Nice way to slam sufferers of autism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No no no. Your wrong. Anonymity is an important and vital component of free speech. This is due to the simple fat that expressing certain views and opinions, such as in politics may get you killed. The fact is, while the government can say it prosecutes such offenses, the fact is there is little to prevent these acts from happening and in many cases the attacker may remain untraceable. The government cant be everwhere to protect everyone. As well, a lack of anonymity would allow your employer to basically
Re: (Score:2)
This judge is probably right.
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to protection from extra-legal reprecussions, I would include quasi-legal such as what amounts to a SLAPP suit. That is, the judge should consider whether a potential lawsuit could have any merit.
However, in this case, It looks like the judge made the right decision. Following the link in TFA, it's clear that the offending comments had nothing to do with legitimate political discussion and were clearly intended to be hurtful and offensive.
When I first saw the headline, it sounded like the implem
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that the judge should include an analysis of the anonymous poster's financial portfolio as well? I'm sure that would be a lot more helpful to this woman.
Re: (Score:2)
"The only reason that anonymity should be permitted is when wrongdoing is being exposed and there is a possibility of extra-legal repercussions"
Why just extra-legal repercussions? There have been many occasions through the centuries and plenty in recent years even where the legal system in the US has been abused to cause undeserved harm to someone. Plenty of times people have been bankrupted or given a bad name through the legal system when they were in fact not wrong. A good example is someone accused of r
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As others have pointed out, she should sue first and *then* get the name of the poster. Then, if she decides that the person isn't worth suing (perhaps they're mentally ill or willing to settle amicably out of court), she can drop the civil lawsuit and it all goes away. It is only if criminal charges were filed that she wouldn't be able to back out of it.
Freedom of speech using your name is important, but freedom of speech using a pseudonym or being completely anonymous is important also. The First Amend
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, have to know if there's money to be made.
It doesn't, actually. Freedom of speech means that the Government can't imprison me for saying something they don't like (but they can send an assassin after me if they really di
Re: (Score:2)
eventually, and inevitably, any powerful regime is liable to become corrupt and you never know, it could be your rights on the firing line.
American citizens' rights have been on the firing line since 9/11 and freedom of speech doesn't seem to have helped matters any..
Hip Check (Score:2, Informative)
For what it's worth, "hip check" is a roller derby term.
Re:Hip Check (Score:4, Informative)
It's a hockey term, actually. I imagine roller derby appropriated it because it's basically the same kind of hit. In hockey, though, you can get much better arc on your opponent if you catch them just right.
What was the "deeply disturbing" comment? (Score:4, Interesting)
From comments on some random website: There is no case, therefore no reason to reveal ID. Trib said after her son asked Hipcheck16 to debate in person, Hipcheck16 asked her son if he frequently invites guys fron the internet over. A perfectly valid question. It could have been meant to make son more cautious in general. Good advice in the form of a rhetorical question.
But I have no verification if that's correct, and if it is, whether it's the whole story.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the Judge feels the language is strong enough to bring the case to court, which would reveal the poster's identity anyway. This option allows her to find out who it was and decide not to press charges. I think the better discussion would not be if the case was strong, but if its right to give personal information that could avoid prosecution. I'm kind of feeling that it is. No sense in putting a loudmouth 13 year old through the legal ringer.
Here is the "deeply disturbing" comment (Score:2)
You really should click more...
Declining an invitation to pay a visit, Hipcheck16 posted a response that said, according to court documents, "Seems like you're very willing to invite a man you only know from the Internet over to your house -- have you done it before, or do they usually invite you to their house?"
The post then continues with references to the boy's "mommy," saying that statements made by her son may cause her political problems after her election, according to court records.
Stone said the co
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (Score:4, Insightful)
Lewd? I see no lewd insinuations at all in the above quote. Read it carefully, and avoid projecting your own lewdness on to the sentence.
Yes, it can make a reference to sex. As it can to underage drinking, running away from mom, sedition, playing with legos, and a whole lot of other things. The poster only set up an entrapment for your lewd mind, and succeeded.
I think one has to be seriously oversexed or repressed to see a sexual reference where there is none.
Which, perhaps, tells us plenty about the situation here in the US today. Many people will actively look for "lewdness" under every rock, because that's where their repressed minds go.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretending the words don't mean what everyone reading them knows they mean is the wrong approach. Trying to convince people to say that they might mean something else by insulting those who jump directly to the meaning that was clearly intended when the words were written? Ancient rhetorical trick, not even an A for effort.
If it's 1960, and I'm with a group of guys in white hoods, and finding a black man I say "fetch a rope", I don't get to later claim "maybe I was just offering to help the poor guy with
Re:Here is the "deeply disturbing" comment (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the internet. Around these parts, statements like that barely qualify as impertinent, let alone lewd.
People who feel otherwise, should leave.
When will some people learn... (Score:3, Insightful)
... that theres really no such thing as anonymity online. If someone wants to find out who you are then eventually they will. Which obviously is a double edged sword - if its someone protesting against an oppressive government or suchlike then anonymity is prized , however if its some spiteful little teen using it to fire unpleasent potshots at people he/she doesn't like then I suspect most people will care little if their identity is revealed and most will probably be quite happy with that decision.
Re:When will some people learn... (Score:5, Informative)
... that theres really no such thing as anonymity online. If someone wants to find out who you are then eventually they will.
I could...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Opening yourself to Man in the Middle spying or Over the Shoulder spying isn't a bulletproof plan to protect anonymity if you're a paranoid individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Hah, I don't have to do any of that. I will just use my wifi and claim that you stole my wifi!
Who said you'll be found out via the net? (Score:2)
On all those situations you or your car will probably be video'd on CCTV or seen by someone and couple that with the time that you did whatever it was you'll be found pretty quick.
Re:Who said you'll be found out via the net? (Score:5, Insightful)
On all those situations you or your car will probably be video'd on CCTV or seen by someone and couple that with the time that you did whatever it was you'll be found pretty quick.
So lets say someone wants to make an anonymous statement.
Are you suggesting that 'they' are able to do this:
1. Know within a short period of time that Anonymous comment X was made by someone they wish to track down.
2. Subpoena the IP logs of the website where the comment was made (assuming that such logs are kept)
3. Receive the logs, determine which ISP the IP was assigned to
4. Subpoena the IP assignment table of the ISP and receive the cooperation of the ISP.
5. Assuming that the IP is correct, identify the location where the wifi router was.
6. Go to that location and take a guess as to which camera records to subpoena.
7. Subpoena the records of the cameras.
8. Hope that the cameras actually show something and that the data hasn't been overwritten. (Some only store 1 week of video)
9. Ask around and see if anyone saw any nefarious individuals using *gasp*, a laptop. (Who are you going to ask in a McDonalds? The people who are there now, or the people who have scattered to the winds 5 minutes after eating? The employees who are obviously savants and remember everything since they work at McDonalds and could easily identify someone using a laptop in their store 2-3 weeks ago)
10. Realize that the guy who posted the comment didn't even enter the store and simply typed up the statement/message in private and set it up to connect to the first open wifi location and didn't even have to take his laptop out of his bag.
11. ????
12. Profit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Great post, IndustrialComplex. To expand on that, using a home made cantenna I can access someones WiFi from a block or more away. Using a LiveCD or just doing a low level format I can hide any trace of connecting to someones WiFi. I don't even need to leave my house. What are the police going to do, kick down every door looking for someone who made anonymous comments? Get real.
Even if they were for any reason to get access to my house and find a pringles can, some coaxial cable and a few BNC connectors, wh
Re: (Score:2)
Great post, IndustrialComplex. To expand on that, using a home made cantenna I can access someones WiFi from a block or more away. Using a LiveCD or just doing a low level format I can hide any trace of connecting to someones WiFi. I don't even need to leave my house. What are the police going to do, kick down every door looking for someone who made anonymous comments? Get real.
Even if they were for any reason to get access to my house and find a pringles can, some coaxial cable and a few BNC connectors, wh
Re: (Score:2)
live in another country.
People forget the interweb thingie is international in scope and reach. As long as you speak the language of the locals, you can go make a mess and there is little anyone can do about it. Example: Some little douchebag in Miami might find a local chat group or BBS or blog or whatever in.... I dunno... New Zealand. And he'll go there and stink the place up and get a bunch of people pissed off, call them names and just generally act like an ass. EVEN IF the p
hmm (Score:3, Funny)
Just Playing Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
retitled "Court pitches first amendment" (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that this is a politician stifling anonymous speech makes this decision even more egregious.
This type of speech is SPECIFICALLY what the first amendment was written and added to the constitution to protect!
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
This type of speech is SPECIFICALLY what the first amendment was written and added to the constitution to protect!
No it wasn't. There is nothing about the First Amendment protecting *anonymous* speech.
Remember that when the amendment was written, it was not uncommon for governments to jail individuals for speaking against them, simply because they could. What the forefathers were saying was, "It won't be against the law to speak out against the government in America. Say whatever you want about your ele
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure there is. It protects speech. Period. Whether anonymous or not. Given that many of the framers published under pseudonyms, I would assume they would understand that protecting all speech would include anonymous speech. And without anything in there specificallly denying the protections to speech that happens to be anonymous, it fully protects all anonymous speech as much as other speech.
But I took the comments you are resp
Re:Just Playing Politics (Score:5, Insightful)
goddammit the woman is a politician - her issue is really about defamation & political reputation. - The trouble started when son defended his mom against some criticisms by hipcheck16. This is bad news for people who like to indulge in random uncensored political commentary. And as for us regular slobs who have no reputation to damage - we have to cop the crap without recourse to suing or whatever.
So to sum it up this woman is a professional liar who is pretending that some anonymous stranger implying her son is homosexual is a big issue.
The only thing that is 'deeply disturbing' is this woman's attitude and the fact that she doesn't have anything better to do.
Re: (Score:2)
this woman is a professional liar who is pretending that some anonymous stranger implying her son is homosexual is a big issue.
Someone comment regarding this clearly homophobic trait she has. I'm sure Sith Lord Mandy will be super-happy with that.
It's all in the details... (Score:2, Informative)
In this case, TFA doesn't get into the specific nature of the comments made; I see that some enterprising commenters have found additional details, but we still don't have the fullest possible context to this story. There could be additional comments that were
NOT anonymous! (Score:2)
If he would actually be anonymous, you would not be able to "unmask" (what in unprofessional term) him!
That's the freakin' definition of the term!!
He was perhaps "masked". But his real identity was still known to the site. Which means the commenter was pretty stupid in the first place.
Also this explains, why they can know who his mom is, when he's supposed to be "anonymous". (Try finding the mom of the Anonymous Coward. :P)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that finding out the identity involved getting the IP that the post was made from logged by the web site, then getting the ISP to identify whom was assigned that IP at that time. Since they bothered with the ISP step it would seem his identity was not known by the site.
Which likely could be done for an Anonymous Coward post on slashdot too.
Oh and the mother isn't the mother of the "anonymous" poster but of the guy he pissed off on the forum.
TFA sucks (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2009/hipcheck16-no-turk-182-anonymous-political-speech-sacred [citmedialaw.org]
is much better -- it's written by actual legal scholars and discusses what the specific "deeply disturbing" comments were. Sometimes the hometown major newspaper isn't actually the best place to get articles, Slashdot.
p
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Especially when it's such a substance-less [non-]story.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially when it's such a substance-less [non-]story.
you mean the abridgment of freedom of speech (in a clear-cut case of political dissent, no less)?
yes, not substantive at all.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a bit of cop-out when people hide behind that. In this case, the story is pathetic. Did you read the article? It's like one of those things Yahoo tries to foist in my way when I go to logon to my email. That's never stopped people around here postulating wildly, but sometimes it's better not to post a story than to post utter crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here's some hot news for the rest of the world.
"Britons are among the ugliest people in the world, according to a controversial website that only allows 'beautiful' people to join.
Fewer than one in eight British men and just three in 20 women who have applied to BeautifulPeople.com have been accepted, reports the Daily Telegraph."
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_3557668.html?menu= [ananova.com]
Speaking as someone who spent a large number of years in the UK that's pretty funny. That will teach the ba***rds to ridicule American plugs not long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised.
First there were the Celtic-Britons. Thn came an infusion of Romans and Gauls (100-300s). Then another infusion of Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (500s). A steady invasion of Vikings (Danelaw-800-1000). And finally Norman-French (1100-1200s). You'd think the modern day Celtic-Roman-Anglo-Danish-Norman people living in the UK would be some of the best-looking humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, perhaps we're all just more successful and don't need to apply to dating websites...?
Urgh, can you imagine the sort of person who applies to a dating website centred entirely around physical appearance...
If he did, he would be wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Though few people deserve anonymous abuse, everyone should be able to deal with some.
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Asshole.
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed. There are so much things wrong here...
The Internet already protects you from being stabbed during a heated debate, and now we are supposed to protect you from being called names?
Also the Internet operates under the idea that all peers are that, peers. That means either everybody is an adult or everybody is a child. Considering that the Internet can take you faster than a car to places further than a passport can, it should be safe to assume every peer is an adult.
Also, its easier and makes more sense for parents to be responsible for their children net access than to expect *everyone else* to make sure they are not talking to a kid.
Also, is being gay something so horrible that entertaining the notion that you might be gay is a serious crime?
Also, if the politician "mom" wants to use the legal system to sue for damages, she can sue "john doe" the only reason to get the commenter's name is to act outside of the legal system, why should we allow it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The law doesn't ensure that everyone gets what they "deserve". The law ensures that anyone can express their opinions about any matter, without needing to appeal to any type of authority to determine whether or not something is "okay to talk about" first.
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know which country, state or municipality's "law" you are talking about, but if you are living in a city in the US, you are incorrect.
You may express your "opinions about any matter" but you cannot "say anything you want about anyone", especially not about someone who is not a public figure.
The "law" as you put it, actually protects us against libel and slander. Further, it protects us against speech that would incite violence against someone or puts someone in danger.
It's a shame that so many people in the US think that "free speech" means "I can say anything I want".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Is why I have a bongo and tom-tom sound track playing when I speak.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
civil action isn't an official consequence.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you say "I think we should kill him!" in response to "what should we do with this guy!" from an angry mob of people who accuse someone of some serious crime (whether guilty or not, you have no proof) and they do , in fact kill him, then you can't use "free speech" as a defence if there's a reasonable chance that you are putting someone in jeopardy.
Similarly if you shout "bomb!" in a crowded room and people get trampled to death trying to escape when you knew it was a hoax.
Libel and slander are specific
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you seriously saying that the identity of anyone who calls someone names on the internet should be revealed by force of law?
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:4, Informative)
If you make prank phone calls (even blocking caller ID), the phone company can be made to hand over your phone number & details
I don't think this should be the norm (you can't normally get somebody phoning you named), but i don't see why the internet should be any different.
or to meme it up for you:
Libellous comment is libellous
Threatening comment is threatening
Harassing comment is harassing
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:5, Funny)
The mother could get a dog, and curtains. Problem solved.
Re:If he did, he would be wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say that you make some stupid assertions. I point out that they are stupid. Are you going to start a court proceeding against me? FFS The article doesn't even mention bullying or abuse - instead it says the posts were "deeply disturbing". What is THAT supposed to mean? Who defines "deeply disturbing" anyway? Every vindictive little bitch who has a dorky son?
Stupid shit like this makes anonymity software look more and more appealing. Note to self: if ever I post a non-complimentary comment abou
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Think of the Children (Score:5, Informative)
So the deeply disturbing comments appear to be a teasing double-entendre. That Hipcheck16 may get sued over as the boy has a recently elected parent whom will get kudos for Thinking of the children.
My virgin ears (eyes?) I'm forever scarred.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When I think of abuse that people give out in public - no, I don't.
The Internet at least levels the playing field. In public, people can be intimidating, and that's backed up with the fear of violence, so that other people are scared to even respond.
I also feel that public discourse would be far better off if you knew you may have to publicly acknowledge and back-up your statements.
Right, you first: back up your statement that "one of the major problems with today's society is the near complete absence of c
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:5, Interesting)
from her website, she's generally anti-freedom
opposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds
opposes freedom to use "dangerous pesticides" to kill mosquitoes
opposes freedom to use marijuana
and, from her actions, seems like she's kind of opposed to free speech. However, most telling are the comments in the local newspaper about her endorsement http://www.dailyherald.com/story/comments/?id=280060
What a bitch
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I live in Amsterdam since 6 years, and I can tell you: marijuana smells pretty badly. So, I don't care about the substance, but regulating acceptable "smell levels" would not be a bad thing :-)
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me or want to spread dangerous pesticides on the environment, that's not only YOUR freedom on the table.
There are many things that are dangerous in this world. Cars, for instance, are numerous times more dangerous to me than any dog, and I speak as someone who has been attacked by a large and dangerous dog as a child. I would never call for a ban on either of those, but they do not necessarily invade the rights of others. Pesticides, too, can perhaps be used in a way that doesn't cause all of those nasty chemicals to pollute someone else's property. Until it crosses the border from one person's property to the next, it's OK in my book.
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the reason why you need several special permits (driving license, vehicle inspection proof, insurance) to operate a car on a public road.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with dog bans is that there's a correlation/causation problem when defining "vicious breeds."
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:5, Insightful)
But if you want to walk around with dangerous dogs that can attack me
I don't want you walking around with a dangerous tool of rape tucked in your trousers. You could rape me any time!
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, you shouldn't be afraid of me, I'm harmless.
But I see lots of ghetto scum walking around with aggressive pitbulls that they use to look bad, threaten people and even to mug people. We are talking about dogs trained and used EXPLICITLY as weapons. Maybe something should be done about it, no?
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:5, Insightful)
I feel a lot of scum being abusive and rude to women, threatening to rape them as well.
I have two rottweilers. They are spoilt rotten sweet couch potatoes. If a thief broke into our house they would LICK him to death. They've been brought up with a lot of love and they don't have a clue what aggression is. But despite that they are OMG ROTTWEILERS TAKE THESE MURDERER DOGS AWAY FROM ME!
Maybe we should tackle the actual problem, not the overgeneralization?
Re: (Score:2)
That's why you have to balance personal freedoms. Since state-sponsored genital mutilation is greater imposition on freedom than being raped (yes, it's traumatic, but if you had a choice between being raped and being mutilated you'd probably choose being raped), that's not reasonable.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong about dangerous dog breads.
As long as they obey leash laws the bread shouldn't matter. If you trespass into their fenced yard, and are bitten, that is your fault.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The crust of most dog breads are a bit too ruff for me; I prefer beagles and cream cheese.
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:4, Interesting)
GP said:
opposes freedom to own "vicious" dog breeds
Note the quotes around "vicious"? That's because breeds are not inherently vicious, individuals are. Banning certain breeds is neither necessary to eliminate all dangerous dogs (because within any dog breed, there will be well-behaved, friendly dogs), nor is it sufficient (because within any dog breed, there will be mistreated, dangerous dogs). If you speak to a knowledgeable dog owner or breeder, they will tell you that upbringing and environment matters far more than genetics in determining whether a dog will be dangerous/vicious. If you ban certain breeds, you'll be needlessly banning many friendly dogs, and you won't be addressing dangerous dogs of other breeds. If you want to legislate your freedom against dangerous dogs, use a sensible definition of "dangerous", rather than an arbitrary one such as "dogs of the following breeds: ..." If a dog attacks someone without reasonable provocation (as determined by a criminal court), have the dog euthanized, fine the owner, even jail the owner if it can be shown that the owner was responsible due to deliberate actions or gross negligence. In severe cases where an owner is a repeat offender, maybe even prohibit that person from ever owning or being responsible for a dog again. But ban a breed just because the misinformed public believes they are more likely to be vicious? No.
Just to pre-empt some of the expected rebuttals, yes certain dog breeds are responsible for a greater share of dog attacks than others, even after controlling for the number of such dogs in a given area. But banning those breeds won't solve the problem, or even alleviate it in a meaningful way for more than a year or two (time enough for people to acquire another puppy and then train/abuse it into becoming dangerous). Repeat after me: correlation is not causation. The reason those dogs are involved in more attacks is -- get this -- because people think they are more vicious! If you were the sort of person who wants to have a vicious guard dog (which you won't train properly, or might even abuse in order to encourage viciousness), you're going to want a dog that will be perceived by others as big, strong, and dangerous, because that makes a more effective guard dog. It doesn't matter if the dog has any tendency towards viciousness or not, if the dog is anything less than perfectly trusting of strangers, you can make the dog vicious. And then that breed will have more than its fair share of vicious dogs, not because the breed trends that way inherently, but because people who want a vicious dog trend towards buying those breeds! If you ban that breed, it won't stop them from getting a dog and making it dangerous, they'll just do it with a different breed with appropriate characteristics (physically strong, reasonably or highly intelligent, having a strong pack/family sense, and a tendency to be protective of their pack/family -- all positive characteristics in a properly-trained dog). Of course, if enough people pick the same breeds based on those characteristics, then those breeds will gain a reputation for being vicious and get added to the list of banned breeds, rinse, repeat.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless, its not a question of freedom, its a question of public health. It might be a stupid public health answer, but it goes through the right channels.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless, its not a question of freedom, its a question of public health. It might be a stupid public health answer, but it goes through the right channels.
Public health oncerns are generally overbroad, politically targetted, and regularly exaggerated.
I'd suggest it's up to the individual to decide whether second hand smoke from someone smoking pot should characterised as objectionable, welcome, or somewhere in between (as in "Dude, it's only 8:00 in the morning").
Re: (Score:2)
I asume you realise your anti-pot stance can be rpelaced with "alchohol", a legal substance - those problems exist with any drug. It is an iirational argument
Or how about make it illegal to drive while under the influence? Oh wait, driving while incapable already IS illegal
Just because something is legal doesnt mean you cannot legislate usage, or have treatment programmes for people who abuse the substance. Why punish the majority who can use a substance safely for the sake of a minority?
Re: (Score:2)
What does "deserved" mean? Did the boy in question do something that merited a punishment or is he simply guilty for being different or not part of the in crowd in some way.
I would like more details of the case, but harrassment, whether online or offline is not m
Re:Maybe the 15 year old is a momma's boy (Score:5, Insightful)
Are there a place for anonymous comments? Yes, defitely, to fight a system mostly. For bullying or harrassment? No.
Who decides what is "bullying" or "harrassment?" One person's "harrassment" might be someone else's "fighting the system." Who decides this? You? Me? Well, me, of course.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
One person's "harrassment" might be someone else's "fighting the system."
A fifteen year-old child is not part of The System, so this is clearly harassment. There are different standards for public discourse against celebrities/politicians and private citizens/minors, as there should be.
And in no circumstance does "Freedom of Speech" equate to "Freedom of Anonymous Speech." Don't be lulled into a false sense of security by the proliferance of User IDs in lieu of real names. The day is coming when the US G
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
> Did the judge consider the possibility that the boy in question might be a momma's boy and deserved the online abuse?
Hmm that reminds me of when I did Jury service some years back. It was a GBH case and one of the jurors said "To be honest if the victim was as annoying that night as he was in court today, he was probably asking for a slap - but that doesn't mean they should have done it"