Debate thread.
Comments
-
iShopBellaOo wrote: »I agree with most of what you said saidin, except for one thing, websites like 4chan and encyclopedia dramatica aren't simply small corners of the internet, they affect most websites, starting a revolution on 4chan can heavily effect other websites as was proven multiple times, but most notably the lukeywes/youtube incident.
Based on what you said, 4chan should be able to have a ToS that allow the people within their forums complete freedoms, to start riots that effect other websites around them.
That's like saying one bus company has the freedom for all their passengers to go stand in front of a rival companies bus, just because they can.
I'm not too sure where I stand on this point. I think that there's a lot of fallacy here.
First off, 4chan isn't that big. You're talking about the group Anonymous (or whatever the kids are calling them these days). Sure they can affect things. But no more than say, Facebook. Or setting up 5,000 people to all get together in time square and start dancing in the middle of traffic for 5 minutes.
I don't think the world is ready to press the blow up button due to 4chan any time soon. I think it gets a lot of exposure for the generation that use it. But beyond that it's not revolutionary. -
[GM]Saidin wrote: »I'm not too sure where I stand on this point. I think that there's a lot of fallacy here.
First off, 4chan isn't that big. You're talking about the group Anonymous (or whatever the kids are calling them these days). Sure they can affect things. But no more than say, Facebook. Or setting up 5,000 people to all get together in time square and start dancing in the middle of traffic for 5 minutes.
I don't think the world is ready to press the blow up button due to 4chan any time soon. I think it gets a lot of exposure for the generation that use it. But beyond that it's not revolutionary.
Perhaps the point was over exaggerated, the website has the ability to cause harm to an extent.
The point is not allowing things to get out of hand, when people begin to gather in large mass in times square blocking traffic, police come and break it up.
There is no way to prevent that without something along the lines of what philly said, which would be fining websites who didn't enforce certain rules upon the people using their website. -
Sites should not be the ones in charge
I would just like to point out that sites and domains should not be the ones who make the laws of the internet. Surely websites have terms and agreements however, when was the last time any has read these? We're all guilty of it aren't we? If we consider everything these terms say than any falsification of info on websites like myspace and facebook would be deemed illegal. (Example: People lying about their age) In the Megan Meier case they tried ultimately trialing this lady for violation of the terms of agreements of myspace with malicious intent of harming a teenager. Her actions were not justified however she never really did anything "illegal." What I'm pointing out is that websites can put anything they want in these "mutual agreements" and 99.99% of the time, the user will not read it. If we rely on the internet to make their own laws, how would we fulfill this through. With no physical nation, there would be no court rooms to trial people, no physical prisons to incarcerate, no officials to execute the law. In no way should actions on a cyber spectrum be exempt from existing laws, but on the same note, there shouldn't be brand new laws for the internet. Rather what should be done is take into consideration of the laws that people already know because they are apart of the country. -
Cyberbullying
And on the note of cyberbullying, this action in itself should never be criminalized. I am well aware of suicides that occur with cyberbullying put at blame but if we make the act criminalized, then it wouldn't just be the clear cut cases we'd see in court. I define cyberbullying as repeated, malicious abuse with the intention of harm to another individual via electronic means. The problem at hand is how can we decide the future of a kid based on an intention that we are really not sure is there. Example
A) Everyday I text my friend hey [offensive slur] jokingly without knowing that it is causing harm to him. He takes offense and presses charges with "cyberbullying legislation"
Everyday I text my friend the same message but with the intention to cause him harm. He takes offense and presses charges under cyberbullying
The problem is how will the court decide if intention was there which is a needed variable to be determined. Otherwise we would rely solely on the victim's reaction for the crime (which as we can see can vary by individual)
Point is, Cyberbullying should not be a criminal offense -
Then maybe you shouldn't text him with the offensive slur in the first place.And on the note of cyberbullying, this action in itself should never be criminalized. I am well aware of suicides that occur with cyberbullying put at blame but if we make the act criminalized, then it wouldn't just be the clear cut cases we'd see in court. I define cyberbullying as repeated, malicious abuse with the intention of harm to another individual via electronic means. The problem at hand is how can we decide the future of a kid based on an intention that we are really not sure is there. Example
A) Everyday I text my friend hey [offensive slur] jokingly without knowing that it is causing harm to him. He takes offense and presses charges with "cyberbullying legislation" Everyday I text my friend the same message but with the intention to cause him harm. He takes offense and presses charges under cyberbullying
The problem is how will the court decide if intention was there which is a needed variable to be determined. Otherwise we would rely solely on the victim's reaction for the crime (which as we can see can vary by individual)
Point is, Cyberbullying should not be a criminal offense
There really is no humor in it. -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »Then maybe you shouldn't text him with the offensive slur in the first place.
There really is no humor in it.
Keep in mind that this is completely hypothetical but the point is that nothing I have done in situation A was inherantly intended to cause harm. The point of the matter however is that how on earth do we distinguish when something is malicious or not? It's the idea of "mens rea" or guilty mind in Latin. Things cause with intention and accidentally are two entirely different things and if this was legislated there is no way to distinguish. It's a guessing game with the child's future -
Keep in mind that this is completely hypothetical but the point is that nothing I have done in situation A was inherantly intended to cause harm. The point of the matter however is that how on earth do we distinguish when something is malicious or not? It's the idea of "mens rea" or guilty mind in Latin. Things cause with intention and accidentally are two entirely different things and if this was legislated there is no way to distinguish. It's a guessing game with the child's future
If you drink and drive, you are taking the risk of harming someone, the same as when you text the remark.
If you kill someone with your vehicle you are charged with murder, even if it was an accident.
Don't the rules still apply? -
AgreedRather what should be done is take into consideration of the laws that people already know because they are apart of the country.And on the note of cyberbullying, this action in itself should never be criminalized. I am well aware of suicides that occur with cyberbullying put at blame but if we make the act criminalized, then it wouldn't just be the clear cut cases we'd see in court. I define cyberbullying as repeated, malicious abuse with the intention of harm to another individual via electronic means. The problem at hand is how can we decide the future of a kid based on an intention that we are really not sure is there. Example
A) Everyday I text my friend hey [offensive slur] jokingly without knowing that it is causing harm to him. He takes offense and presses charges with "cyberbullying legislation" Everyday I text my friend the same message but with the intention to cause him harm. He takes offense and presses charges under cyberbullying
The problem is how will the court decide if intention was there which is a needed variable to be determined. Otherwise we would rely solely on the victim's reaction for the crime (which as we can see can vary by individual)
Point is, Cyberbullying should not be a criminal offense
You only take the position of the person getting sued.... What about the person getting truly bullied? I'm talking about people he knows here, not random trolls on 4chan/forums, people that have access to your mobile number, email, facebook/other social sites...
Sure, you can block them on some of those things, but the problem is that we are available whereever we are. Pestering people no longer stops when you don't see them, now they can bully you when they're not even around. Some people aren't even bright enough to just block them.
You're saying that you should just let them get along with it because you don't know why they did it? There could be a slighter punishment if there is doubt about the intention, but letting it go unpunished is certainly not the better option.
If it's your friend, he'll just tell you to stop it....iShopBellaOo wrote: »Then maybe you shouldn't text him with the offensive slur in the first place.
There really is no humor in it.
As if you never called one of your friends names for fun. -
Phillybear wrote: »Agreed
You only take the position of the person getting sued.... What about the person getting truly bullied? I'm talking about people he knows here, not random trolls on 4chan/forums, people that have access to your mobile number, email, facebook/other social sites...
Sure, you can block them on some of those things, but the problem is that we are available whereever we are. Pestering people no longer stops when you don't see them, now they can bully you when they're not even around. Some people aren't even bright enough to just block them.
You're saying that you should just let them get along with it because you don't know why they did it? There could be a slighter punishment if there is doubt about the intention, but letting it go unpunished is certainly not the better option.
If it's your friend, he'll just tell you to stop it....
As if you never called one of your friends names for fun.
Your right, I have, but perhaps we should all learn to simply...respect one another? -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »If you drink and drive, you are taking the risk of harming someone, the same as when you text the remark.
If you kill someone with your vehicle you are charged with murder, even if it was an accident.
Don't the rules still apply?
Yes but with alcohol it is very clear what has happened in those cases. But with cyberbullying, the act is so broad. With drunk driving you see, here's the car, here's the dead body we know what was the cause of death. It was obviously the metal hitting the victim and we know the driver behind the wheel controlled it. However with cyberbullying and the internet we don't see that direct correlation.
How do we know this person died because of what someone said. Can we prove any sort of intention. Is this case even cyberbullying?
Cyberbullying is so broad that people will have different opinions on whether something is truly cyber bullying or not. Whereas drunk driving we see the alcohol toxicity we see the dead body. With cyberbullying we see words that could be seen as playful to some and traumatizing to others. If cyberbullying was a law, every case would need to be looked at individually and since cyberbullying is so broad, again its a guess. And while law is the tool to determine guilt, it should never be a coin flip. -
-
Yes but with alcohol it is very clear what has happened in those cases. But with cyberbullying, the act is so broad. With drunk driving you see, here's the car, here's the dead body we know what was the cause of death. It was obviously the metal hitting the victim and we know the driver behind the wheel controlled it. However with cyberbullying and the internet we don't see that direct correlation.
How do we know this person died because of what someone said. Can we prove any sort of intention. Is this case even cyberbullying?
Cyberbullying is so broad that people will have different opinions on whether something is truly cyber bullying or not. Whereas drunk driving we see the alcohol toxicity we see the dead body. With cyberbullying we see words that could be seen as playful to some and traumatizing to others. If cyberbullying was a law, every case would need to be looked at individually and since cyberbullying is so broad, again its a guess. And while law is the tool to determine guilt, it should never be a coin flip.
With cyberbullying you have Emails, texts, and a dead body.
When your reading texts or emails or something else, you can generally understand when they are kidding or not. -
Again refer back to my scenario.
Same textual evidence. Same infuriated friend (lets up the antie and say he decided to take his life) One with intended harm the other without. In one case, I never meant anything by it. How do we tell this intention.
Think about how many kids are bullied. If we make cyberbullying illegal think of the countless kids we could mistakingly incarcerate. This reactionary solution would only ruin the future of KIDS who may not have even known the harm or even intended to harm the individual.
FOCUS on education rather. Prevent the damage and teach kids its immoral before it happens -
In other words, teach the kids not to send the message to begin with :PAgain refer back to my scenario.
Same textual evidence. Same infuriated friend (lets up the antie and say he decided to take his life) One with intended harm the other without. In one case, I never meant anything by it. How do we tell this intention.
Think about how many kids are bullied. If we make cyberbullying illegal think of the countless kids we could mistakingly incarcerate. This reactionary solution would only ruin the future of KIDS who may not have even known the harm or even intended to harm the individual.
FOCUS on education rather. Prevent the damage and teach kids its immoral before it happens -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »In other words, teach the kids not to send the message to begin with :P
In no means am I supporting cyberbullying. I'm simply saying legislation would only bring problems and distort the good intentions that it has.
Yes AND Without the need for messy legislation that is essentially russian roulette with the future of youth -
Yes but with alcohol it is very clear what has happened in those cases. But with cyberbullying, the act is so broad. With drunk driving you see, here's the car, here's the dead body we know what was the cause of death. It was obviously the metal hitting the victim and we know the driver behind the wheel controlled it. However with cyberbullying and the internet we don't see that direct correlation.
How do we know this person died because of what someone said. Can we prove any sort of intention. Is this case even cyberbullying?
Cyberbullying is so broad that people will have different opinions on whether something is truly cyber bullying or not. Whereas drunk driving we see the alcohol toxicity we see the dead body. With cyberbullying we see words that could be seen as playful to some and traumatizing to others. If cyberbullying was a law, every case would need to be looked at individually and since cyberbullying is so broad, again its a guess. And while law is the tool to determine guilt, it should never be a coin flip.
Laws about DUI are based on convention. There are people capable of driving perfectly normal with more than the allowed amount of alcohol in their blood and people who can't drive anymore after 1 glass of wine. But according to the law, only the last group would be allowed to drive, although they would cause more accidents. Why? Convention.
The same can be applied to cyberbullying. In some cases it will be obvious that the intent to harm was there. Or at least that a line was crossed. Like I said before, if it is not clear what the intentions were, a lighter punishment can be given. After a while, there will be precedents enough to make a clear outlining of what signs of malicious intention are.
This.iShopBellaOo wrote: »When your reading texts or emails or something else, you can generally understand when they are kidding or not. -
Phillybear wrote: »The same can be applied to cyberbullying. In some cases it will be obvious that the intent to harm was there. Or at least that a line was crossed. Like I said before, if it is not clear what the intentions were, a lighter punishment can be given.
This.
The issue I have with this is that the judicial system is not set up to say hmmm Idk about this one so we'll give you a fine. You're not guilty but you're not innocent either.
In Justice we have Guilty and Innocent we have no inbetweens. A decision MUST be made in court. If we simply fine when we have no idea we are basically saying we give up pay this amount and that is NOT justice. What if you are innocent and have to pay this? Rediculous isn't it? -
-
The issue I have with this is that the judicial system is not set up to say hmmm Idk about this one so we'll give you a fine. You're not guilty but you're not innocent either.
In Justice we have Guilty and Innocent we have no inbetweens. A decision MUST be made in court. If we simply fine when we have no idea we are basically saying we give up pay this amount and that is NOT justice. What if you are innocent and have to pay this? Rediculous isn't it?
Some murderers get life. Some get 25 years. WHY?
Because one was less severe than the next.
There is an inbetween, because not all crimes are the same. -
Again refer back to my scenario.
Same textual evidence. Same infuriated friend (lets up the antie and say he decided to take his life) One with intended harm the other without. In one case, I never meant anything by it. How do we tell this intention.
Think about how many kids are bullied. If we make cyberbullying illegal think of the countless kids we could mistakingly incarcerate. This reactionary solution would only ruin the future of KIDS who may not have even known the harm or even intended to harm the individual.
FOCUS on education rather. Prevent the damage and teach kids its immoral before it happens
Not punishing them might ruin the future of the kids being bullied. Something else: cyberbullying isn't limited to kids. Adults can do it just as well. As in everything else, punishments for children and adults would be different.
And how many things that are thaught to kids as immoral are actually avoided by kids? They have been telling children that bullying is bad already before cyberbullying existed. But did it stop them from bullying? -
Phillybear wrote: »Not punishing them might ruin the future of the kids being bullied. Something else: cyberbullying isn't limited to kids. Adults can do it just as well. As in everything else, punishments for children and adults would be different.
And how many things that are thaught to kids as immoral are actually avoided by kids? They have been telling children that bullying is bad already before cyberbullying existed. But did it stop them from bullying?
It's like if a family member was murdered and the murderer walks free, you simply lose trust in the system.
The same would apply to someone being bullied. There simply has to be a way to punish those who do it. -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »Some murderers get life. Some get 25 years. WHY?
Because one was less severe than the next.
There is an inbetween, because not all crimes are the same.
Are all actions crimes? A 12 year old kid texts his friend telling her she's ugly. Mean but should we place the label criminal to his name? Was there any real criminal action here? Again society is relying to heavily on government which in all honesty is not the answer for this case. Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal. Keep in mind Cyberbullying is primarily with children and teens.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think that someone should be convicted in court for a text they sent (without malicious intention) to someone who decided to kill themselves?
We keep straying away from the point that Cyberbullying in its essence is broad. It's all too easy to misconceive text in a cyber spectrum. And deciding the fate of a child based on a broad term is not ok. -
Are all actions crimes? A 12 year old kid texts his friend telling her she's ugly. Mean but should we place the label criminal to his name? Was there any real criminal action here? Again society is relying to heavily on government which in all honesty is not the answer for this case. Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal. Keep in mind Cyberbullying is primarily with children and teens.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think that someone should be convicted in court for a text they sent (without malicious intention) to someone who decided to kill themselves?
You can tell that someone was not actually cyberbullying, you don't understand that side of the argument, it's more of a "don't cross the line." -
The issue I have with this is that the judicial system is not set up to say hmmm Idk about this one so we'll give you a fine. You're not guilty but you're not innocent either.
In Justice we have Guilty and Innocent we have no inbetweens. A decision MUST be made in court. If we simply fine when we have no idea we are basically saying we give up pay this amount and that is NOT justice. What if you are innocent and have to pay this? Rediculous isn't it?
If they can't prove your guilt, you're innocent. If they can prove that your actions were the direct cause or part of the direct cause for his death, you are guilty. Killing someone without the intention to kill him still makes you a murderer. But it was unintentional, so you get a lesser punishment. People get convicted for crimes they didn't commit now as well. A system of justice will always be flawed, but that can't be a reason to exclude things. -
iShopBellaOo wrote: »You can tell that someone was not actually cyberbullying, you don't understand that side of the argument, it's more of a "don't cross the line."
yes but where is that line. We can't rely on the reaction of the victim to be that line. People see things differently its natural so on that note. How on earth do we decide this "line" -
yes but where is that line. We can't rely on the reaction of the victim to be that line. People see things differently its natural so on that note. How on earth do we decide this "line"
By using common sense, common sense is accepted in courts. -
If I text you a nasty message once is this cyberbullying. How about if I text you once again. What about another time. At what point can we determine it's cyberbullying. And can you please provide a sufficient definition of cyberbullying because under the one I accept, its repeated, intended harm to an individual and I don't see how this intention can be efficiently proven in court
-
iShopBellaOo wrote: »By using common sense, common sense is accepted in courts.
Common sense is objectional. What is offensive to one can easily be seen as playful to another.
Question:
Do you believe that intention is a crucial part of determining a cyberbullying case? -
Are all actions crimes? A 12 year old kid texts his friend telling her she's ugly. Mean but should we place the label criminal to his name? Was there any real criminal action here? Again society is relying to heavily on government which in all honesty is not the answer for this case. Just because something is wrong doesn't mean it should be illegal. Keep in mind Cyberbullying is primarily with children and teens.
Let me ask you a question. Do you think that someone should be convicted in court for a text they sent (without malicious intention) to someone who decided to kill themselves?
We keep straying away from the point that Cyberbullying in its essence is broad. It's all too easy to misconceive text in a cyber spectrum. And deciding the fate of a child based on a broad term is not ok.
You are exaggerating there...A single text can not be considered cyberbullying, we're talking about lengthy, non-stop pestering. People will say that they don't like it, that they want it to stop. Bullies will go on. No matter how you want to see the text there, you can't deny it's a bully. Bullies don't pick on people that don't respond, that's just "not fun". A victim that is clearly moved by their actions is way more fun for them. Which brings us to the situation above: complaints from the bullied person.
Or would you keep calling your friend (going with your situation here) names if he has explicitly asked you to stop? If he is clearly not amused, even hurt by it?
Turn the roles around. If your friend calls you names in texts and you don't like it. Will you just shut up or ask him to stop it?
Anyway, I must be going to bed now. I hope this thread is still around when I get back, I'll rejoin the convo later.
Goodnight.
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- Off-Topic - Go To Game OT Forums
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 16 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 5.2K CrossFire
- 951 CrossFire Announcements
- 942 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 1.4K Community
- 122 Modes
- 600 Suggestions
- 85 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 274 CF Competitive Forum
- 19 CFCL
- 26 Looking for a Team?
- 703 CrossFire Support
- 52 Suggestion
- 116 Bugs
- 29 CrossFire Guides
- 166 Technical Issues
- 47 CrossFire Off Topic