I put on my robe and wizard hatlowing wrote:
a great argument.....Vilham wrote:
Well lowing seems your own laws disagree with you there. As to actually what harassment is defined by the law it is:lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhhhh if only one could possibly be harrassed over the fucking internet................It is impossible to be harrassed when you are one left click mouse button away from it.....For the love of GOd, will you liberal please add some personal responsibilty to your bullshit, and maybe, just maybe you might add some legitmacy to your arguments.
in a legal sense it refers to behaviours that are found threatening or disturbing.
So according to your claim in your thread its impossible to be threatening over the phone. Right....
My response would be however, Over the phone people know who you REALLY are and perhaps where you REALLY live. Your phone is part of REAL LIFE, not some sort of on line fantasy.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- How come so many people don't know their own laws?
"Well shit, back in the day if someone gave you harrassing or crank phone calls, you changed your number" From the horses mouth. So thirty minutes ago you were saying any harassment that wasn't in person isn't harassment, now your changing that. Make up your mind so I can actually know what issue we are debating here...lowing wrote:
a great argument.....Vilham wrote:
Well lowing seems your own laws disagree with you there. As to actually what harassment is defined by the law it is:lowing wrote:
Ahhhhhhhh if only one could possibly be harrassed over the fucking internet................It is impossible to be harrassed when you are one left click mouse button away from it.....For the love of GOd, will you liberal please add some personal responsibilty to your bullshit, and maybe, just maybe you might add some legitmacy to your arguments.
in a legal sense it refers to behaviours that are found threatening or disturbing.
So according to your claim in your thread its impossible to be threatening over the phone. Right....
My response would be however, Over the phone people know who you REALLY are and perhaps where you REALLY live. Your phone is part of REAL LIFE, not some sort of on line fantasy.
What about when online harassment is done by people who know you, where you live, etc... in real life and not just is some sort of online fantasy?lowing wrote:
My response would be however, Over the phone people know who you REALLY are and perhaps where you REALLY live. Your phone is part of REAL LIFE, not some sort of on line fantasy.
That doesn't seem wrong to you?
Same goes, you did change your number, if that didn't work then you got the phone company to trace the calls for you then you went to the police. Again your phone is part of real life. You answered your phone ( if you were inclined to talk) because back then it was the only way to find out who was calling you. But online?? please, if you can not make a distinction between the 2 then this conversation is hopeless.Vilham wrote:
"Well shit, back in the day if someone gave you harrassing or crank phone calls, you changed your number" From the horses mouth. So thirty minutes ago you were saying any harassment that wasn't in person isn't harassment, now your changing that. Make up your mind so I can actually know what issue we are debating here...lowing wrote:
a great argument.....Vilham wrote:
Well lowing seems your own laws disagree with you there. As to actually what harassment is defined by the law it is:
in a legal sense it refers to behaviours that are found threatening or disturbing.
So according to your claim in your thread its impossible to be threatening over the phone. Right....
My response would be however, Over the phone people know who you REALLY are and perhaps where you REALLY live. Your phone is part of REAL LIFE, not some sort of on line fantasy.
I think part of the confusion on some of the less serious laws come from the enforcement. People do illegal stuff all the time, but that doesn't mean they get in trouble for it.
I can think of ways NOT to be harrassed on line. and I am willing to bet you can as well. Being harrassed online is akin to being raped over the phone.......gimme a breakSenorToenails wrote:
What about when online harassment is done by people who know you, where you live, etc... in real life and not just is some sort of online fantasy?lowing wrote:
My response would be however, Over the phone people know who you REALLY are and perhaps where you REALLY live. Your phone is part of REAL LIFE, not some sort of on line fantasy.
That doesn't seem wrong to you?
I would just like to interject with two things:lowing wrote:
Same goes, you did change your number, if that didn't work then you got the phone company to trace the calls for you then you went to the police. Again your phone is part of real life. You answered your phone ( if you were inclined to talk) because back then it was the only way to find out who was calling you. But online?? please, if you can not make a distinction between the 2 then this conversation is hopeless.
1. IP addresses.
2. Hacking/phishing/malware/spyware.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-07-02 12:16:01)
and how does either give away your home address, or your identity? Not being a smart ass, but if it does I am curious as to how.CameronPoe wrote:
I would just like to interject with two things:lowing wrote:
Same goes, you did change your number, if that didn't work then you got the phone company to trace the calls for you then you went to the police. Again your phone is part of real life. You answered your phone ( if you were inclined to talk) because back then it was the only way to find out who was calling you. But online?? please, if you can not make a distinction between the 2 then this conversation is hopeless.
1. IP addresses.
2. Hacking/phishing/malware/spyware.
the IP address might just give the city you live in. the malware/spyware approach could do searches on your HD for personal info like tax returns, address for wall street journal subscription on a cookie, etc. supposedly there are ways that some of this software can even slurp up your cut-n-paste information and send it back to the thieves.lowing wrote:
and how does either give away your home address, or your identity? Not being a smart ass, but if it does I am curious as to how.CameronPoe wrote:
I would just like to interject with two things:lowing wrote:
Same goes, you did change your number, if that didn't work then you got the phone company to trace the calls for you then you went to the police. Again your phone is part of real life. You answered your phone ( if you were inclined to talk) because back then it was the only way to find out who was calling you. But online?? please, if you can not make a distinction between the 2 then this conversation is hopeless.
1. IP addresses.
2. Hacking/phishing/malware/spyware.
identity theft is a big problem. Ask Todd Davis - laughably even he got his identity stolen and he's the president of that Lifelock company.
Actually, that would be battery, not assault.Vilham wrote:
But you still must know of things like slander, harassment, assault, murder, robbery etc and what classes as one of them, eg it is assault to punch someone. As petty as that seems its the law.God Save the Queen wrote:
sorry, i only spend a few hours everyday reading my city, county, state and federal laws and regulations.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
guess vilham doesnt know his own laws
Actually its assault AND battery.
It's only assault and battery if you threaten and then hit them. The threat is assault, the hit is battery.Vilham wrote:
Actually its assault AND battery.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
burn
go study your laws vilham
go study your laws vilham
Last edited by God Save the Queen (2008-07-02 20:25:27)
I know, I know..........lowing broke out the liberal kryptonite..againCameronPoe wrote:
Oh my God lowing has started with his blatant nonsense 'liberals don't know about personal responsibility' bullshit again. Get a thread, lowing.
I'm drunk and I read this as " how come so many people don't mow their own lawns? " and I'm thinking I do, I do!
Again wrong.FEOS wrote:
It's only assault and battery if you threaten and then hit them. The threat is assault, the hit is battery.Vilham wrote:
Actually its assault AND battery.
Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any physical contact with another person without their consent.
Battery is that physical contact, you can't commit battery without assaulting someone.
But what exactly constitutes them is pretty specific.Vilham wrote:
But you still must know of things like slander, harassment, assault, murder, robbery etc and what classes as one of them, eg it is assault to punch someone. As petty as that seems its the law.God Save the Queen wrote:
sorry, i only spend a few hours everyday reading my city, county, state and federal laws and regulations.
True, but I thought most people had a vague idea of when and when not they were committing a crime or a suable offence.ZombieVampire! wrote:
But what exactly constitutes them is pretty specific.Vilham wrote:
But you still must know of things like slander, harassment, assault, murder, robbery etc and what classes as one of them, eg it is assault to punch someone. As petty as that seems its the law.God Save the Queen wrote:
sorry, i only spend a few hours everyday reading my city, county, state and federal laws and regulations.
Key loggers for one. They record every key stoke and send it back to big brother for 'Market analysis"lowing wrote:
and how does either give away your home address, or your identity? Not being a smart ass, but if it does I am curious as to how.CameronPoe wrote:
I would just like to interject with two things:lowing wrote:
Same goes, you did change your number, if that didn't work then you got the phone company to trace the calls for you then you went to the police. Again your phone is part of real life. You answered your phone ( if you were inclined to talk) because back then it was the only way to find out who was calling you. But online?? please, if you can not make a distinction between the 2 then this conversation is hopeless.
1. IP addresses.
2. Hacking/phishing/malware/spyware.
So think about that, next time your filling in your address and credit card details online.
yeah, there is a way not to be harassed online. Lock yourself in a dark room, cut all communication lines, and hope you're not attacked by W-Lan.lowing wrote:
I can think of ways NOT to be harrassed on line. and I am willing to bet you can as well. Being harrassed online is akin to being raped over the phone.......gimme a breakSenorToenails wrote:
What about when online harassment is done by people who know you, where you live, etc... in real life and not just is some sort of online fantasy?lowing wrote:
My response would be however, Over the phone people know who you REALLY are and perhaps where you REALLY live. Your phone is part of REAL LIFE, not some sort of on line fantasy.
That doesn't seem wrong to you?
Seriously, lowing, how can you not see that online communication has become so much a part of the daily life of americans ( inlcuding yourself, probably ) that not going online to avoid harassment is no longer an option ?
I mean, that's like saying "don't answer the phone, or open the door, you could be harassed".
Social networks, MSN, ICQ, Forums, newsgroups, e-mail. Those have become regular means of communication for a new generation. Is it really too much to ask that those people get to have the same protection from harassment than the rest ?
Why should we go out of our way and change our habits ? Shouldn't it rather be the criminals that should be chased down, and prosecuted ?
My online activities are just as much a part of my social life as the phone calls, or dates, or going to the movies, etc..
on topic:
laws are complex. a lot of people will simply have a wrong impression about the specifics of applicable laws, especially if they have never been confronted with law enforcement, or the legal system. As you guys just demonstrated with the Assault and Battery issue, there is a lot to consider.
A lot of people will also enter any given situation, thinking they know the law, only to find out later that they really don't, and suffer unfortunate consequences. In germany, we call this "gefährliches Halbwissen". ( "dangerous half-truths" / "dangerous half-knowledge" )
Furthermore, who has the time to read all of that text ? It's complicated, time-consuming, often impossible to understand without a degree in law.
Hell, a lot of lawyers, judges, and police officers don't know all laws. There is simply too much of it these days. Some of it makes sense, some doesn't.
We have to keep lawyers in business. If laws we few and easy to understand, then they wouldn't have as much work. Attorney is one of the top professions being churned out in the US today. When is enough? Shakespear had the right idea.B.Schuss wrote:
laws are complex. a lot of people will simply have a wrong impression about the specifics of applicable laws, especially if they have never been confronted with law enforcement, or the legal system. As you guys just demonstrated with the Assault and Battery issue, there is a lot to consider.
A lot of people will also enter any given situation, thinking they know the law, only to find out later that they really don't, and suffer unfortunate consequences. In germany, we call this "gefährliches Halbwissen". ( "dangerous half-truths" / "dangerous half-knowledge" )
Furthermore, who has the time to read all of that text ? It's complicated, time-consuming, often impossible to understand without a degree in law.
Hell, a lot of lawyers, judges, and police officers don't know all laws. There is simply too much of it these days. Some of it makes sense, some doesn't.
Yeah, no. People break the law all the time when driving, for example, and often don't know it. Most people barely understand how right of way works.Vilham wrote:
True, but I thought most people had a vague idea of when and when not they were committing a crime or a suable offence.ZombieVampire! wrote:
But what exactly constitutes them is pretty specific.Vilham wrote:
But you still must know of things like slander, harassment, assault, murder, robbery etc and what classes as one of them, eg it is assault to punch someone. As petty as that seems its the law.
FYI: If you live in Australia and ride a fixie pushbike without a brake, you're breaking the law.
people mostly know the laws that will effect them in their day to day lives, road rules for example. most discussion on here is either hypothetical or whimsical opinions, no one here is an activist for anything. at least to the extent that they need to know the laws involved in their cause.Vilham wrote:
Basically there have been a bunch of threads over the last fews days by people I thought were adults, yet they don't seem to know their own laws, im amazed at this, I thought everyone knew the basic laws of their society.
So why do you think so many people don't even know the law anymore?
Before law social control was the way to live. People haven't stepped of from this kind of thinking, they continue to think in relation to what their families/friends will think/do. This is enough since in most lawbooks there is the "habbit rule". Therefore nobody is realy required to know the laws as long as they live as decent and brain-using individuals.
The law is only there to protect from social deviants, giving the people/leaders the power to break there own law in order to punish a deviant and force him to adapt to the thinking of a certain group.
The law is only there to protect from social deviants, giving the people/leaders the power to break there own law in order to punish a deviant and force him to adapt to the thinking of a certain group.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- How come so many people don't know their own laws?