PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
What about *your* rights online?
January 15th 2001, 01:15 CET by Andy

Michael Sims cares about your rights online. Up to a point...

Sims maintains the "Your Rights Online" section on Slashdot, where he is described as an "online free-speech activist". He was a member of the six-man Censorware Project which aimed to "bring to light information about censorware products which is, by their nature, hidden".

His own web site, Censorware.org, is now dead "due to demands from some of the people who contributed", but a message is posted there asking for volunteers to "fight censorware". According to Sims, you should have "a commitment to free speech" and "a mature attitude and outlook".

Sounds like the sort of guy you want fighting for your rights, doesn't he?

So you might wonder why he turned up on a UK-based civil liberties mailing list the other day, launching an apparently unprovoked attack against one of the participants, the physicist Laurence Godfrey.

Godfrey is a somewhat notorious figure in British legal circles, having successfully sued the ISP, Demon Internet, for a message posted to a newsgroup.

Under UK law, once an ISP has been notified of a defamatory newsgroup message, they are regarded as the publisher. They don't have to remove it, but if they don't, they can be sued for libel. Godfrey asked for a defamatory message to be removed, Demon refused, so he took them to court and eventually Demon caved in.

There was never any suggestion that the defamatory message was true.

But truth doesn't seem all that important to Michael Sims, as for some reason he decided to level the same, highly personal accusation at Godfrey, and throw another one in for good measure.

So if Sims really does care about a person's rights online, how about the right NOT to be libelled? Or do you lose that right when you say or do something that Michael Sims doesn't agree with?


ps. If you've heard the malicious gossip that Sims shut his Censorware.org site down because a web filter company paid him off -- sorry, paid him $7,500 for ten minutes' work, strictly legit -- then don't believe it. That sort of rumour can ruin a man's reputation.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: What about *your* rights online?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by "Fragaday"
2001-01-15 01:21:07
fragaday@bigfoot.com
Wow, a big web of facts to mull over before I make an intelligent comment (read: try to understand whats going on). I'll have thought of something by morning... until then, goodbye.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#2 by "Foogla"
2001-01-15 01:34:08
Foogla@Somethingawful.com
Maybe he got spoofed? Sounds fishy to me.
#3 by "asspennies"
2001-01-15 01:48:11
asspennies@somethingawful.com
<quote>ps. If you've heard the malicious gossip that Sims shut his Censorware.org site down because a web filter company paid him off -- sorry, paid him $7,500 for ten minutes' work, strictly legit -- then don't believe it. That sort of rumour can ruin a man's reputation.</quote>

I guess this is more of that "biting British sarcasm" that has become so terribly trite.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#4 by "Ryvar"
2001-01-15 02:04:07
sonnej@rpi.edu
*shrugs* I agree with Michael and respect his right to say whatever he wants.  Period.  Bar nothing.  In Canada, for instance, (my understanding is) freedom of speech is so staunchly defended that they've dropped much of their kiddie-porn laws because they believe in taking the bad with the good.  A position I respect, which is more than I can say for the average US viewpoint on freedom of speech.  I'm not defending child pornographers, but I believe that there is absolutely nothing which should not be held permissible by law when it comes to expression.  Afterall - we permit our 'artists' and celebrities to say whatever they want and defend them - why should my rights be any different?  Does Britney Spears deserve, innately, a better set of laws regarding conduct than I do?  Does OJ Simpson?  You regular slashdot readers out there might recognize him as one of the far less annoying posters there, but that's just my opinon.

--Senor Barborito
#5 by "None1a"
2001-01-15 02:06:05
none1a@home.com
<b>Andy</b> (#0):
<quote>Sims maintains the "Your Rights Online" section on Slashdot, where he is described as an "<I>online free-speech activist</I>". He was a member of the six-man Censorware Project which aimed to "<I>bring to light information about censorware products which is, by their nature, hidden</I>".</quote>

Come one andy you know online right amount to nothing more then being able to say what ever the hell you feel like at any time. As dumb as it sounds I could fake a report about x3dfx employees creating errors in Nvidia products and the online free speech activist would be on my side with out knowing a damn thing about the case.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#6 by "Apache"
2001-01-15 02:13:42
apache@stomped.com
Free speech is a good thing(tm) in my opinion, but there are limits (slander, libel, defamation, etc).  

I despise people who use IP scramplers or use fake email profiles (hotmail, yahoo, etc) to post nasty messages on forums. Should people be held accountable for their actions when using 'shady' tactics to post hate online and hope to remain "just another anon" voice; I don't think so.

Should people who use valid IP's and names be protected? Yes. At least within the limits of the law.
#7 by "SteveBauman"
2001-01-15 02:29:23
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com
So if Sims really does care about a person's rights online, how about the right NOT to be libelled? Or do you lose that right when you say or do something that Michael Sims doesn't agree with?

Or alternately something Andrew Smith doesn't agree with, especially regarding libel laws.

ps. If you've heard the malicious gossip that Sims shut his Censorware.org site down because a web filter company paid him off -- sorry, paid him $7,500 for ten minutes' work, strictly legit -- then don't believe it. That sort of rumour can ruin a man's reputation.

Ooh, is this irony?

By the way, love the italic emphasis... what would we do without you thinking for us?
#8 by "Andy"
2001-01-15 02:34:20
andy@meejahor.com
<b>SteveBauman</b> (#7):
<quote>
By the way, love the italic emphasis... what would we do without you thinking for us?
</quote>
What italic emphasis?
#9 by "Andy"
2001-01-15 02:43:54
andy@meejahor.com
<a href="http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_173176.html">2001 + 100 = 3000</a>
#10 by "szcx"
2001-01-15 03:21:33
nedocze@hotmail.com
how about quoting Sim's post so that people can comment based on facts, and not what you may or may not have spun this story into?
#11 by "BloodKnight"
2001-01-15 03:30:49
bloodknight@somethingawful.com
#4 Underage sex rules!

/bullshitting off
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#12 by "SteveBauman"
2001-01-15 03:47:49
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com
What italic emphasis?

The italics within quotes, the ones emphasizing statements about this dude.

It's as if you wanted us to really get their meaning in case we were, I dunno, too stupid to see the point you're making here (if there is a point).

For example, if I write:

Andrew Smith really likes George Broussard.

or

Andrew Smith really likes George Broussard.

one has a different meaning because I elected to italicize something that didn't require italics.

So I wonder why you felt the need to italicize the qotes. It's not standard formatting.
#13 by "Andy"
2001-01-15 04:08:25
andy@meejahor.com
<b>SteveBauman</b> (#12):
<quote>
So I wonder why you felt the need to italicize the qotes. It's not standard formatting.
</quote>
I usually italicise short quotes. Didn't think it would offend anyone.
#14 by "Desiato"
2001-01-15 04:11:20
desiato_hotblack@hotmail.com
Being anonymous is something that should be protected. Only the people who don't realize what a slippery slope it becomes in banning certain types of "freedom" cry out for full disclosure.

If you are willing to give up freedom in the name of false security - you deserve none.

Desiato
#15 by "SteveBauman"
2001-01-15 04:20:59
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com
If you are willing to give up freedom in the name of false security - you deserve none.

It's certainly easy to feel this way absolutely when you're not the recipient of an attack designed to damage your reputation and/or destroy your professional and personal life.
#16 by "SteveBauman"
2001-01-15 04:24:33
steve@manic-pop-thrills.com
I usually italicise short quotes. Didn't think it would offend anyone.

It's not offensive, but italics are usually used by lazy writers for emphasis, so when you italicize something in a quote it appears you're giving it emphasis, as if it has some meaning beyond its literal one.

I hadn't noticed you doing that before, which is why it puzzled me. If you view those quotes in the context of having some "greater meaning," it really slants the story. (It would appear that you're questioning those quotes, or they're illustrating some form of hypocrisy on the part of the quotee or something.)
#17 by "None1a"
2001-01-15 04:25:50
none1a@home.com
<b>Desiato</b> (#14):
<quote>Being anonymous is something that should be protected. Only the people who don't realize what a slippery slope it becomes in banning certain types of "freedom" cry out for full disclosure.

If you are willing to give up freedom in the name of false security - you deserve none.</quote>


Desiato cought soliciting school children.

Yesterday a man calling himself Desiato was cought in a police sting operation. The sting was an attempt to curb the growing problem of pedofile who solicit school children in online chat room with promises of tickets to populer concerts. [snip]

Of course none of that is ture, but image the same thing on a site that looks just like CNN or any local news out let. About a high profile public figure. A few links on message boards and usenet and the rumor spreads. Not much you or any one else could do about it, after all the site was put on a few server, a cnn like name was registered with namezero (with a quick frame removal), all registered to a fake e-mail address.

Sorry Desiato if the fake story offended you or any one else, just trying to get the point acrosed (and if your are offended stop and think about it for a minute). <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#18 by "Apache"
2001-01-15 04:28:04
apache@stomped.com
So, did this "Sims" person give up his last site to dedicate his time at slashdot? I'm not sure I follow the Andy bashing in this thread either...
#19 by "the_reformed_pianist"
2001-01-15 05:39:58
pianist@canada.com
Andy is a pasghetti!!!!!!!!!
#20 by "Quicken"
2001-01-15 06:33:02
geoffrey@access.com.au
Free speech is not a good thing. People need to be able to say what they want AND take responsibility for that statement. If someone should seek anonymous commments then good on them. If someone should publish (on the internet or otherwise) anonymous comments then they better damn well take responsibility for them. To blindly uphold the idea of free speech is to give free reign to threatening, offensive and or sladerous statements.

I'm like Apache and don't quite see Andy's point. Sim's clearly a nut that is stongly defending free speech. Even to the point of abusing somone who should sue those liable for slander.

Although I can't say I'm too fond of UK law picking out the service provider rather than the host. After all it's only going to block one person (or group of people, I'm not sure of the details) from seeing it.
#21 by "None1a"
2001-01-15 06:38:36
none1a@home.com
<b>Quicken</b> (#20):
<quote>I'm like Apache and don't quite see Andy's point. Sim's clearly a nut that is stongly defending free speech. Even to the point of abusing somone who should sue those liable for slander. </quote>

I belive that is andy's point (or at lest the one I've been using thus far). That Sim's supports your right to say any thing to feel online, but not your right to be sure infomation posted about use is factual and relavent. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#22 by "szcx"
2001-01-15 06:40:40
nedocze@hotmail.com
does the UK still have parlimentary priviledge?  where an MP can say whatever the heck he likes in parliment without fear of being, say, sued for libel?  if so, it's a shame the average citizen isn't afforded the same right.
#23 by "Arkan"
2001-01-15 06:50:48
arkan@evem.org.au
Apache in #18:
So, did this "Sims" person give up his last site to dedicate his time at slashdot? I'm not sure I follow the Andy bashing in this thread either...


He doesn't seem to dedicate much to to editing Slashdot. If you look at his recent posts, they are most full of errors. In the last couple of days he has (1) Posted that Slackware 7.2 was released when it wasn't, (2) Claimed JVC was going after everyone with JVC in their domain name (it was actually QVC), (3) repeated stories (Mir coming down, electronic notepad) etc.etc.

FWIW, on other mailing lists I have been on, he has made the most profoundly stupid posts.
#24 by "PainKilleR"
2001-01-15 06:57:10
painkiller@planetfortress.com
You know, I read through this thread with 'wtf is Andy trying to say?' going through my head the whole time. I went and read a couple more posts on the other threads, then CrapSpy started blinking with a new reply here, and I looked at the title of the thread, finally figured it out.

So, basicly, unless I'm completely off base here, this Sims guy is trying to defend everyone's right to free speach, but fuck anyone's right to keep people from saying something that's false, because that interferes with his freedom of speach.

Ok, maybe I'm slow. In any case, I agree that it's problematic if people can just go around saying whatever they want without providing sources or proof if it's going to effect someone else. The biggest reason for it being problematic, though, is that people don't bother to fact-check for themselves and often take anything presented in a certain manner as truth. Of course, the only link Andy's given us is a link to Censoreware.org, so I'll just assume that he's full of shit and not worry about it either way ;)

-PainKilleR-[CE]<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#25 by "Apache"
2001-01-15 06:59:18
apache@stomped.com
ahhh, so this "Sims" person is just a retard?

Does Andy want his job at Slashdot or something? ;)
#26 by "PainKilleR"
2001-01-15 07:03:36
painkiller@planetfortress.com
<b>Apache</b> (#25):
<quote>Does Andy want his job at Slashdot or something? ;)</quote>

Do they score the original stories on Slashdot or just the posted replies? It'd be interesting to see how many stories Andy could post over there that get the -5 Troll thrown up there. ;Ž

-PainKilleR-[CE]<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#27 by "toadwarrior"
2001-01-15 07:12:46
toadw@uplink.net
<b>#20</b> "Quicken" wrote...
<quote>Free speech is not a good thing. People need to be able to say what they want AND take responsibility for that statement. </quote>

People are supposed to  have responsibility but that's not the case lately.

The way the net is now is the way it should be. The problem with making it too easy to track someone down is the wrong person can get the info. I don't think it's that hard to track people down now.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#28 by "szcx"
2001-01-15 07:44:56
nedocze@hotmail.com
Do they score the original stories on Slashdot or just the posted replies?

just the replies, unfortunately.  the whole scoring system bothers me, but it'd sure be nice if the editors would subject themselves to the same system as everyone else.
#29 by "WarrenMarshall"
2001-01-15 07:50:22
warren@epicgames.com
szcx (#22):
does the UK still have parlimentary priviledge? where an MP can say whatever the heck he likes in parliment without fear of being, say, sued for libel? if so, it's a shame the average citizen isn't afforded the same right.

Yes, what a terrible shame that people can't say whatever they want about anyone else, true or not.  WTF?

toadwarrior (#27):
People are supposed to have responsibility but that's not the case lately.

The way the net is now is the way it should be. The problem with making it too easy to track someone down is the wrong person can get the info. I don't think it's that hard to track people down now.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I somehow doubt that free speech is designed to protect speech pulled from the ether.  I imagine the assumption is that you KNOW who is producing the speech that they want to be considered free.  Spouting insults from behind an anonymizer isn't quite the same thing ...

---

Warren Marshall
Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill
Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#30 by "szcx"
2001-01-15 07:55:47
nedocze@hotmail.com
Yes, what a terrible shame that people can't say whatever they want about anyone else, true or not. WTF?

i'm not saying it's right, i just wanted to point out the double standard in the event that parliamentary priviledge still exists.
#31 by "deadlock"
2001-01-15 10:31:29
deadlock@eircom.net
Does the US constitution place any restrictions at all on free speech ? The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland gaurantees free speech, but there are one or two restrictions, designed to prevent incitement to riot or hatred etc.

deadlock
#32 by "Hambone"
2001-01-15 11:45:13
Cosmando@homestead.com
Andy, you are, honest to God, an idiot. If your posts about Something Awful didn't convince me, this story of yours does. There are two kinds of moron in this world: the ones that can't comprehend simple ideas, and the ones that are just to lazy to try. You are both kinds of moron. I understand that might not make sense to you, it is because you are an moron, though. And I will tell you why:


So if Sims really does care about a person's rights online, how about the right NOT to be libelled? Or do you lose that right when you say or do something that Michael Sims doesn't agree with?

I can not tell if you don't understand what you are saying or if this is just ignorant doublethink (that is from a book, dealing in part with censorship, called 1984, it is for people less stupid than yourself, so you might not understand). Michael Sims is, according to your story, only advocating 2 things: privacy online, and freedom of speech. Neither of these two similar concepts are in anyway contradictory to a defamatory message. Hate is part of free speech, and I support it. I support free speech in all its facets, because ideas (in and of themselves) don't hurt people, only ignorance does.
I do mean to come off sounding like an asshole here, and I do expect you to respond in anger. That is the beauty of freedom of speech, the exchange of ideas, whatever their tone.
I did not mean to offend you, only to express myself through speech. If it makes you feel better, you have my permission to go burn some books and smash some Beatles records. ;)
#33 by "Fragaday"
2001-01-15 12:11:18
fragaday@bigfoot.com
Slept like a log.

Now, the way I see it...

There a a lot of hypocrites in this world, just some are more vocal than others.

Simple. Or not, because that story is just waaaaay too confusing.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#34 by "deadlock"
2001-01-15 12:19:52
deadlock@eircom.net
Hambone:

I think you're missing the point though - Michael Sims flamed someone for responding to a defamatory and libellous message that was posted about him. This is that person's right. As you pointed out, for better or worse, free speech also gaurantees the right to be an arsehole.

Also, you can't apply US standards to the UK, or indeed anywhere else in the world, which is essentially what Michael Sims is doing in this instance.

deadlock
#35 by "Ryvar"
2001-01-15 19:39:17
sonnej@rpi.edu
#32 - thank you for expressing my own point better than I am able to.

--Senor Barborito
#36 by "Therac"
2001-01-15 21:39:37
zenfnord@hotmail.com
<i>Bar nothing. In Canada, for instance, (my understanding is) freedom of speech is so staunchly defended that they've dropped much of their kiddie-porn laws because they believe in taking the bad with the good. </i>

This must be another Canada than the one I'm in.  They didn't "drop" anything (laws never get "dropped").  A court ruling at one point was made in favour of a defendant that had something that could be considered child porn (btw, in Canada, possessing any child porn - which includes writing down a description of child porn for your own pleasure - is a criminal act).  Basically, the court said that it wasn't.  Naturally, everyone is scrambling to say that it is again.  That link is two years out of date.  I can't find anything fresher than Jan 2000 on the subject.
#37 by "Therac"
2001-01-15 21:41:04
zenfnord@hotmail.com
Oh, as for mr. sims, he's a twirp.  I find it fitting that Andy is flaming someone who is just as big of a prick as he is.
#38 by "toadwarrior"
2001-01-15 23:33:52
toadw@uplink.net
<b>#29</b> "WarrenMarshall" wrote...
<quote>
I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I somehow doubt that free speech is designed to protect speech pulled from the ether. I imagine the assumption is that you KNOW who is producing the speech that they want to be considered free. Spouting insults from behind an anonymizer isn't quite the same thing ...

---

Warren Marshall
Level Designer/Programmer/Corporate Shill
Epic Games (www.epicgames.com)</quote>

If they're not serious, then what's the problem? Unless of course they don't point it out. There are some problems but that doesn't mean we should ruin it for everyone. I'd rather put up with some BS than to risk having some wanker finding out who I am and bothering me with retard phone calls or signing me up for magazine subscriptions.
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#39 by "toadwarrior"
2001-01-15 23:35:51
toadw@uplink.net
<b>#31</b> "deadlock" wrote...
<quote>Does the US constitution place any restrictions at all on free speech ? The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland gaurantees free speech, but there are one or two restrictions, designed to prevent incitement to riot or hatred etc.

deadlock</quote>

Yes, you can't yell fire in a theater, start a riot, etc. You can't lie to ruin someone. You can lie, like when comedians make jokes about politicians. Not everything they say is true but they can say it.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#40 by "Frain"
2001-01-15 23:40:10
frain@bigfoot.com
<b>toadwarrior</b> wrote in #38:
<quote>If they're not serious, then what's the problem? Unless of course they don't point it out. There are some problems but that doesn't mean we should ruin it for everyone. I'd rather put up with some BS than to risk having some wanker finding out who I am and bothering me with retard phone calls or signing me up for magazine subscriptions.</quote>

<b>toadwarrior</b> wrote in #39:
<quote>Yes, you can't yell fire in a theater, start a riot, etc. You can't lie to ruin someone. You can lie, like when comedians make jokes about politicians. Not everything they say is true but they can say it.</quote>

Erm, isn't that a contradiction? On the internet, you can say something like "JeffK rapes goats" or "I want to remain anonymous, but UGO is going out of business next week for sure" without being held responsible because nobody knows who you are.

Frain<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#41 by "Quicken"
2001-01-16 00:20:23
geoffrey@access.com.au
there are laws that protect the use of lies (even if it edges close to slander) if it is clearly used as a tool for humour (ie not to be taken seriously).
#42 by "None1a"
2001-01-16 02:00:20
none1a@home.com
To every one that thinks you should have the ability to do what ever you please online take a good look at #47 in the less gameing thread.

Do you really belive people should not only beable to but have the right to post crap like that where ever they feel? <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#43 by "Barneyque"
2001-01-16 02:03:35
barneyque@hotmail.com
<b>#42</b> "None1a" wrote...
<quote>To every one that thinks you should have the ability to do what ever you please online take a good look at #47 in the less gameing thread.

Do you really belive people should not only beable to but have the right to post crap like that where ever they feel? </quote>

Absolutely not.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#44 by "Quicken"
2001-01-16 02:14:26
geoffrey@access.com.au
Not even slightly :(
#45 by "VeeSPIKE"
2001-01-16 03:02:21
appliedavoidance@mindspring.com
<b><u>toadwarrior</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#39</b>, babbled the following:
<quote>Yes, you can't yell fire in a theater, start a riot, etc. You can't lie to ruin someone. You can lie, like when comedians make jokes about politicians. Not everything they say is true but they can say it.</quote>


Yes, but those restrictions are not Constitutional restrictions, those are items in the US Code, and in the laws of the States. The US Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, actually bars Congress from making laws that regulate speech, among other things. The argument could probably be made that the exceptions mentioned above are unconstitutional. However, you would probably lose in court over questions of the general welfare.

<b><u>Frain</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#40</b>, babbled the following:
<quote>On the internet, you can say something like "JeffK rapes goats" or "I want to remain anonymous, but UGO is going out of business next week for sure" without being held responsible because nobody knows who you are.
</quote>

Or nobody really wants to go through the hassle of finding out who you are (because it can be done.) Internet anonymity is somewhat over-rated (Ramtin anyone?)

<b><u>None1a</u></b>, in the delightfully enlightening post <b>#42</b>, babbled the following:
<quote>To every one that thinks you should have the ability to do what ever you please online take a good look at #47 in the less gameing thread.
</quote>

MY EYES!!!!! MY EYES!!!!!!

Did you really have to post that? A link would have been ok, that way I could have decided against looking at it. And as far as whether or not people should be allowed to post stuff like that - not as far as I am concerned.
<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#46 by "None1a"
2001-01-16 03:09:23
none1a@home.com
<b>VeeSPIKE</b> (#45):
<quote>MY EYES!!!!! MY EYES!!!!!!

Did you really have to post that? A link would have been ok, that way I could have decided against looking at it. And as far as whether or not people should be allowed to post stuff like that - not as far as I am concerned. </quote>

I didn't some one else did and it just happens to work quite well as a great example why online free speach rights need some sensable limits placed on them. In fact I'd have liked them not be be posted as well (like I want to be tricked into looking at that).

Also Morn is you do want to delete them do not let my use of those images as examples stop you from doing so.<i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#47 by "Hambone"
2001-01-16 08:00:50
Cosmando@homestead.com
None1a:
To every one that thinks you should have the ability to do what ever you please online take a good look at #47 in the less gameing thread.

Do you really belive people should not only beable to but have the right to post crap like that where ever they feel?


Did you not read my angry rant? Of course I think people should be able to post that kind of shit. Can you honestly tell me you think it should be against the law to be a sick fuck? You think for posting something gross (or extremely gross for that matter) in a forum, a person should go to jail? Where do you draw the line? If someone describes a lurid act should they be arrested?
That is my point, you can't draw a line when it comes to human rights. No government has the authority to dictate morals to the public.
Of course I also believe that people shouldn't be subjected to such nastiness. And, though you probably didn't expect it, you were not forced to look at it. On a personal level, it certainly wouldn't bother me if morn gets rid of those pictures before anyone else stumbles across them, as that is his right.

Anyway, here is a less disgusting picture that might help you get your mind off of that other shit. It is a 1973 Corvette Stingray.
[img]http://hambone.homestead.com/files/vette.jpg[/img]
#48 by "None1a"
2001-01-16 08:23:57
none1a@home.com
<b>Hambone</b> (#47):
<quote>Did you not read my angry rant? <B>Of course</B> I think people should be able to post that kind of shit. Can you honestly tell me you think it should be <B>against the law</B> to be a sick fuck? You think for posting something gross (or extremely gross for that matter) in a forum, a person should go to jail? Where do you draw the line? If someone describes a lurid act should they be arrested?</quote>

I never said the person should go to jail for it, I simply said posting crap like that should not be his right. If we go that far and try to say it's his right to post sick crap where ever he feels like it we'd also start to make removeing the images a violation of his right.

Where do we draw the line of allowing people to do this, when he starts posting it in message boards for teens, when he starts printing it out and sticking it between the pages of Highlights? <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
#49 by "Hambone"
2001-01-16 08:44:44
Cosmando@homestead.com
None1a:

I never said the person should go to jail for it, I simply said posting crap like that should not be his right.


I know what you said. I am just posing a questions to make you think.


If we go that far and try to say it's his right to post sick crap where ever he feels like it we'd also start to make removeing the images a violation of his right.


If the government forced morn to remove the images, we could agree that that was wrong, couldn't we? As I said, there is nothing wrong with morn doing what ever he wishes on planet crap. If he decides to ban all images, or get rid of stories and just have us post porn, he wouldn't be "violating" anyone’s rights.


Where do we draw the line of allowing people to do this, when he starts posting it in message boards for teens, when he starts printing it out and sticking it between the pages of Highlights?


I do think that there are exceptions that need to be made when it comes to free speech, but only due to that fact that our society has imperfect people (like goatse and andy). And the most obvious exception would be for the protection of children. God knows what would happen if we let kids develop their own opinions.....
#50 by "None1a"
2001-01-16 08:49:15
none1a@home.com
<b>Hambone</b> (#49):
<quote>If the government forced morn to remove the images, we could agree that that was wrong, couldn't we? As I said, there is nothing wrong with morn doing what ever he wishes on planet crap. If he decides to ban all images, or get rid of stories and just have us post porn, he wouldn't be "violating" anyone’s rights. </quote>

So I only have rights to prevent the government from steping on them others can do as they please. <i><b></b></i><i></i><i></i>
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: What about *your* rights online?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (2) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]