|
Post by Mfitz804 on Mar 19, 2024 23:58:48 GMT -5
Unless it is kiddy porn, let it go. I'm in the "it's the parents job to know what their kids are doing on the internet" camp. This will sound cold but if the parents don't care why should I. It’s not at all practical in the current world, where parents have jobs and kids have internet connected devices in their possession 24/7 and can easily prevent their parents from knowing what they are up to. The idea that parents in that situation could be labeled as “not caring” is a fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 20, 2024 0:52:56 GMT -5
Except intimidation is not an action. Until real harm is caused there is no cause for intervention. Actual threats (chanting "kill the whoevers" or even "from the river to the sea", which is an actual call for genocide) and deliberately being made afraid to go outside is very much real harm, the courts agree and so do I. It is a form of violence. That is far from the situation where someone says "your flag makes me feel threatened" or "use my ridiculous pronouns or else you are threatening me." Like all crimes, the element of Intent is required, and if someone intends to frighten with their words and use written or spoken words to accomplish just that, then their words have gone beyond speech. Same with incitement, slander, harassment, etc. The Right is to protect your expression of thought, not carte blanch to deliberately harm with words. I see a clear distinction there. Brandendburg v. Ohio's standards aren't met by "kill the whoevers" or "from the river to the sea" which requires a three point test, all of which must be met for it to be prohibited/actionable. The intent of the speaker to cause actual violence, imminence of the threat, and the actual probability of it occurring have to all be met. "Future calls to action" is by and large acceptable under Brandenburg - as would be "We wish to change the laws to deport or ban Y", and similar things that some would find threatening. No one has a right to not be 'offended' or the illusion of safety. Now if the group is across from a house of worship affiliated with Y, has torches and exposives, and says "Go get 'em boys" - that's actionable for obvious reasons. But "It's gonna be a bloodbath" or other allegorical speech that is 'hateful" without actual ability or intent or movement to carry out 'threats" isn't. Protest is BY its nature UNCOMFORTABLE.
|
|
DrKev
Wholenote
It's just a guitar, it's not rocket science.
Posts: 418
|
Post by DrKev on Mar 22, 2024 3:42:08 GMT -5
ts! The Law can only legitimately prohibit actions, not thoughts, or the expression of those thoughts, with the exceptions noted above regarding harassment and intimidation. Except intimidation is not an action. Until real harm is caused there is no cause for intervention. Really? Ask any woman who has been stalked or serially harassed how that works in the real world. (Some of them are dead because police wouldn't act or enforce restraining orders).
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 22, 2024 7:11:15 GMT -5
(Some of them are dead because police wouldn't act or enforce restraining orders). See Rob's post. Brandendburg v. Ohio's standards aren't met by "kill the whoevers" or "from the river to the sea" which requires a three point test, all of which must be met for it to be prohibited/actionable. The intent of the speaker to cause actual violence, imminence of the threat, and the actual probability of it occurring have to all be met. "Future calls to action" is by and large acceptable under Brandenburg - as would be "We wish to change the laws to deport or ban Y", and similar things that some would find threatening. No one has a right to not be 'offended' or the illusion of safety. Now if the group is across from a house of worship affiliated with Y, has torches and exposives, and says "Go get 'em boys" - that's actionable for obvious reasons. But "It's gonna be a bloodbath" or other allegorical speech that is 'hateful" without actual ability or intent or movement to carry out 'threats" isn't. Protest is BY its nature UNCOMFORTABLE. If it rises to the point where a judge grants a restraining order it meets the 3 point test.
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 22, 2024 15:36:36 GMT -5
(Some of them are dead because police wouldn't act or enforce restraining orders). See Rob's post. Brandendburg v. Ohio's standards aren't met by "kill the whoevers" or "from the river to the sea" which requires a three point test, all of which must be met for it to be prohibited/actionable. The intent of the speaker to cause actual violence, imminence of the threat, and the actual probability of it occurring have to all be met. "Future calls to action" is by and large acceptable under Brandenburg - as would be "We wish to change the laws to deport or ban Y", and similar things that some would find threatening. No one has a right to not be 'offended' or the illusion of safety. Now if the group is across from a house of worship affiliated with Y, has torches and exposives, and says "Go get 'em boys" - that's actionable for obvious reasons. But "It's gonna be a bloodbath" or other allegorical speech that is 'hateful" without actual ability or intent or movement to carry out 'threats" isn't. Protest is BY its nature UNCOMFORTABLE. If it rises to the point where a judge grants a restraining order it meets the 3 point test. Yep. And it's a case of "self-defense applies" - the police, as good as many of them are as people, aren't there to protect any of ya'll specifically. Not everybody is going to LOVE you and do what you say, and well, when you don't give a safety valve (that ol' soap box, ballot box, cartridge box saw kicks in - when nobody believes in the ballot box any more, and the soap box is gone....what do you have left)..bad things are GOING to happen.
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 22, 2024 15:38:31 GMT -5
Except intimidation is not an action. Until real harm is caused there is no cause for intervention. Really? Ask any woman who has been stalked or serially harassed how that works in the real world. (Some of them are dead because police wouldn't act or enforce restraining orders). And that's why it's criminal that...we don't allow citizens to DEFEND themselves with the tool that makes all men and women equal, and encourage training with same. No restraining order is going to protect someone better than they can (or preferrably, with their extended support network to ....provide crossfire!). No cop is going to be there 24/7.
|
|
krrf
Wholenote
Posts: 376
|
Post by krrf on Mar 23, 2024 9:19:20 GMT -5
Really? Ask any woman who has been stalked or serially harassed how that works in the real world. (Some of them are dead because police wouldn't act or enforce restraining orders). And that's why it's criminal that...we don't allow citizens to DEFEND themselves with the tool that makes all men and women equal, and encourage training with same. No restraining order is going to protect someone better than they can (or preferrably, with their extended support network to ....provide crossfire!). No cop is going to be there 24/7. 9mm faster than 911.
|
|
|
Post by funkykikuchiyo on Mar 23, 2024 11:50:45 GMT -5
Except intimidation is not an action. Until real harm is caused there is no cause for intervention. Actual threats (chanting "kill the whoevers" or even "from the river to the sea", which is an actual call for genocide) and deliberately being made afraid to go outside is very much real harm, the courts agree and so do I. It is a form of violence. That is far from the situation where someone says "your flag makes me feel threatened" or "use my ridiculous pronouns or else you are threatening me." Like all crimes, the element of Intent is required, and if someone intends to frighten with their words and use written or spoken words to accomplish just that, then their words have gone beyond speech. Same with incitement, slander, harassment, etc. The Right is to protect your expression of thought, not carte blanch to deliberately harm with words. I see a clear distinction there. That's the dilemma of safetyism in a nutshell. Lots of crying about wolves, but virtually no agreement on what a "wolf" is. Twitter/X still has pretty strict rules about "doxxing", because that is very often when the rubber actually hits the road and people actually start showing up at people's houses.
|
|
|
Post by funkykikuchiyo on Mar 23, 2024 12:03:33 GMT -5
Unless it is kiddy porn, let it go. I'm in the "it's the parents job to know what their kids are doing on the internet" camp. This will sound cold but if the parents don't care why should I. It’s not at all practical in the current world, where parents have jobs and kids have internet connected devices in their possession 24/7 and can easily prevent their parents from knowing what they are up to. The idea that parents in that situation could be labeled as “not caring” is a fallacy. Right, and throw in there that, last I heard, the AVERAGE age of first exposure to hardcore porn is 11. That is an old figure, too. So, parents tucking in their kids with their dinosaur sheets and putting away their toys probably don't realize the kid has a good chance of ALREADY having seen some seriously nasty stuff. Some experts say the answer is just to talk to kids VERY young about it in language that is kid friendly ("these are okay pictures of people, but we shouldn't look at or let people take pictures of us like this...") and that is probably the best option, but dang... talk about an uphill battle. This is why I love the video store analogy. Just having the room with the curtain isn't getting in the way of any w*nker or limiting speech. Imagine sending a kid to a video store unsupervised while hardcore porn nastier than anything you saw in the '90s was right on the bottom shelf in colorful boxes rivaling the Disney movies. Should be crazy easy at an ISP level. Trying to do it on a device level is whack-a-mole at best. Porn addiction (or just heavy use, if you don't like the idea of addiction) comes with escalation in content. There was a Southpark episode about this a little more than ten years ago... the whole town loses the internet, and Randy complains that he can't use "vanilla" stuff anymore. The potential for this escalation is MUCH higher if kids start younger. Brains are more plastic, and their relation to their own sexuality is not yet established. Get kids hooked on cigarettes early to get a lifetime smoker? That's nothing compared to this... get a kid into porn early you not only get a lifetime w*nker, you also get one who is way more into weird stuff that you can sell, will log way more hours on it, and will help to normalize the behavior to hook even more people. If you need to watch videos of crazy, inhuman stuff before you've even been to a junior high dance, that is going to leave a mark. We'd be naive to think these companies are content to sell their product to just 18+ customers.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Mar 23, 2024 12:14:12 GMT -5
100 years ago brothels were everywhere....
Sure make em prove age, do kids still get fake ID's? I still say it's the parents job and yes I raised enough kids to know it is impossible to know everything they do.
|
|
|
Post by funkykikuchiyo on Mar 23, 2024 12:46:00 GMT -5
So, let the brothels be daycare centers during the day, when the primary business is in a lull. Why not? Kids will find it anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Leftee on Mar 23, 2024 12:48:06 GMT -5
Brothels don’t have home delivery. The internet does. In fact, that’s the internet’s thing.
|
|
|
Post by LTB on Mar 23, 2024 18:04:08 GMT -5
I miss Walter Chronkite “Just the facts Jack” told the facts as they were and didn’t add his opinion and let the viewer decide how to process it. Rarity if non existant these days
|
|
|
Post by Vibroluxer on Mar 23, 2024 20:23:38 GMT -5
I miss Walter Chronkite “Just the facts Jack” told the facts as they were and didn’t add his opinion and let the viewer decide how to process it. Rarity if non existant these days I agree and then there's this: "NBC's Lester Holt says we don’t need to hear both sides to define truth: ‘Fairness is overrated’" www.foxnews.com/media/nbc-news-lester-holt-truth-fairness-overrated
|
|
|
Post by larryguitar54 on Mar 23, 2024 20:59:12 GMT -5
Brothels don’t have home delivery. Regrettable. But if elected I promise I will look into this.
|
|
|
Post by funkykikuchiyo on Mar 23, 2024 21:07:58 GMT -5
There's a game that is played with "access" at a lot of news outlets. If you do a story that politician X doesn't like, their assistants might call the bosses at the outlet and say "it is a shame you're doing this reporting... you wanted that big interview with politician X, didn't you?" and then the boss yells at the reporter who did the story. Bit by bit journalistic integrity is sacrificed.
And of course, keeping people angry keeps loyal viewers. Being red in the face and ranting about the radical center and how they'll over throw the country is going to retain more viewers than just telling the news. The "just the facts" stuff has ended up online with smaller operations. You still get bias there, but usually the bias is disclosed and kept somewhat separated.
|
|
|
Post by LTB on Mar 23, 2024 21:13:58 GMT -5
There's a game that is played with "access" at a lot of news outlets. If you do a story that politician X doesn't like, their assistants might call the bosses at the outlet and say "it is a shame you're doing this reporting... you wanted that big interview with politician X, didn't you?" and then the boss yells at the reporter who did the story. Bit by bit journalistic integrity is sacrificed. And of course, keeping people angry keeps loyal viewers. Being red in the face and ranting about the radical center and how they'll over throw the country is going to retain more viewers than just telling the news. The "just the facts" stuff has ended up online with smaller operations. You still get bias there, but usually the bias is disclosed and kept somewhat separated. Regrettable but very true funky!
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Mar 24, 2024 12:16:13 GMT -5
Actual threats (chanting "kill the whoevers" or even "from the river to the sea", which is an actual call for genocide) and deliberately being made afraid to go outside is very much real harm, the courts agree and so do I. It is a form of violence. That is far from the situation where someone says "your flag makes me feel threatened" or "use my ridiculous pronouns or else you are threatening me." Like all crimes, the element of Intent is required, and if someone intends to frighten with their words and use written or spoken words to accomplish just that, then their words have gone beyond speech. Same with incitement, slander, harassment, etc. The Right is to protect your expression of thought, not carte blanch to deliberately harm with words. I see a clear distinction there. That's the dilemma of safetyism in a nutshell. Lots of crying about wolves, but virtually no agreement on what a "wolf" is. Twitter/X still has pretty strict rules about "doxxing", because that is very often when the rubber actually hits the road and people actually start showing up at people's houses. The X doesn't enforce them against....people on certain fringes at ALL. I know of a few "very right" people who have gotten doxxed who were average Joes and Janes....who were in NO way public figures...and Twitter just nodded and smiled and said it was OK when they bitched.
|
|