Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
New Server | HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info forum | HOMM4: info forum | HOMM5: info forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: The Future of the Internet
Thread: The Future of the Internet This thread is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT»
AlexSpl
AlexSpl


Responsible
Famous Hero
posted December 12, 2016 11:17 PM

Try to fix real life first. Don't want to see something on the Internet, eliminate it in real life in the first place. Too hard?

Well, let us then fix broken mirrors.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
OhforfSake
OhforfSake


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 12, 2016 11:41 PM

I agree, we should find some way to make all of us immortal, but so far we sadly haven't.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
mvassilev
mvassilev


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
HC SUPPORTER
posted December 13, 2016 12:12 AM

OhforfSake said:
Do you mean in regards to Turkey or is it something I have missed?
The UK has arrested some people for insensitive tweets.
____________
Eccentric Opinion

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
AlexSpl
AlexSpl


Responsible
Famous Hero
posted December 13, 2016 12:34 AM

Quote:
The UK has arrested some people for insensitive tweets.

I wonder, why haven't those people been arrested earlier? I doubt that insensitive tweets are their debut.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 13, 2016 08:11 AM

everything edges closer and closer to complete domination over the masses by those in power. no matter what platform it represents itself in, no matter what form of media it uses to communicate it's intentions.

1984, will not only be a country-state, but a world-state. the nwo was always a gradual thing; never an "overnight" thing. i wouldn't have a problem with world unity, as long as the power that comes with that unity wasn't something that the powers exploit. but they do; they exploit the power they have NOW. the problem lies in human nature, and how society puts a pricetag on everything. everything and anything can be sold, for the right price, and by the right buyer/seller. the idea of capitalist society, makes people corrupt(not to mention wasteful as all get out, but that's for another thread).

my voice will never be heard, because i don't want to spend the rest of my life in a cage. but then, i never would allow that. i would just have a shorter life. but so would others; most definitely.

i'll enjoy the mass-illusion for now, while i'm alive. hopefully, reality won't come crashing down on everyone in mine or our family's offsprings' time. even though "reality crashing down and tearing the illusion of society apart" is what i'm specifically designed for.

if i didn't have loved ones, then i would pray for that time; get down on my hands and knees and beg all the gods(or the light, lol) in existence. because i do have loved ones(who are exceptionally soft, in a manner of speaking), i sincerely hope that time never comes. but wish in one hand...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 13, 2016 08:37 AM

mvassilev said:
Blizzardboy said:
In the future, there will hopefully be more controls on it. For example, if you incite a guy seeking help on a forum to commit suicide you can potentially be convicted for it.
What about personal responsibility? He's the one who chooses to commit suicide, it's not like you're killing him.

This is a way too binary perspective once again. Encouraging a clinically depressed person to commit suicide is not murder, certainly not first degree murder. But it's not freedom of speech either and it's not tyranny to classify it as a criminal activity. Even doctors who support the right to euthanasia, draw a line when it comes to clinical depression. If you have terminal cancer they will support to end your pain but if you just lost your legs in a car accident, they will redirect you to a psychiatrist, so that you have time to cope with your new situation and be able to start thinking differently. Life is not a contract, people have phases, they have outbursts, they have inexperience of youth and so on. Categorizing every momentary lapse within the paradigm of "the freedom of taking such decision" is oversimplistic.
____________
Arts but facts - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted December 13, 2016 09:00 AM

AlexSpl said:
Try to fix real life first. Don't want to see something on the Internet, eliminate it in real life in the first place. Too hard?


Well, the russian style is indeed not hard, but we also see what that has done. The freedom of speech is bold on the top of each advanced country constitution, and that was a very long goal to achieve. There is a fundamental belief that the freedom of speech, when guaranteed, allows a stock of ideas where best ideas would win, therefore dangerous and bad ideas would fall to the wayside through intelligent discourse.

History also proved that a government with the power of censoring its people will abuse that power by its very nature, squash criticism and dissent then ultimately become a tyrant. On the other side, when freedom of speech is allowed, the truth always prevailed then it is indisputable that the societies allowing it became more dynamic, making from it a breeding for new ideas, inventions about everything, from business to peoples governance. Individually, free speech also creates more developed people so it is a social good. Then, finally, free speech is a safeguard against the power abuse, allowing journalists and others to expose corruption and tyranny -which nowadays a lot of them don't do it anymore, but participate to it.

Of course, the limits to the freedom of speech became obvious with time, for example the manner of doing it, if it harms others and prohibits them to express. Like no amplified music in the park after midnight. Then, as BB specified, slander and provoke emotional distress by invading others privacy, this is already a reason to legally sue someone. Another example of limitations would be the false advertising, unfair competition, revealing state secrets. Inciting or advertising child porn, obviously. Then the private limitations, in private areas, like this forum for example, it has its own rules allowing its own range of freedom of speech.

Of course, very far away from how is applied today in Europe, where comparing a black person to a monkey sends you in jail espresso, or when criticizing Islam or the politics feeding from its vote became illegal in north Europe and handled with much contemp in others. Freedom of speech is exactly about shocking speech, not about polite argumentation wherever the sky is blue or white. Or today some minorities believe that because they are shocked, the threat should be censored or eliminated. They are clueless on their own country constitution, the same constitution which protects them from popular basic instincts.  
____________
All my Era II mods

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 13, 2016 09:22 AM

Hate crimes should only include statements where somebody directly proposes or insinuates physical violence or blatant discriminative ACTS to a group.
____________
Arts but facts - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
markkur
markkur


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
posted December 13, 2016 06:16 PM

artu said:
Hate crimes should only include statements where somebody directly proposes or insinuates physical violence or blatant discriminative ACTS to a group.


I don't strongly disagree but to me, after considering the added word Hate for a bit - "Hate-Crime-laws" were misguided from the start, although not without a little merit. Regardless, let's run with your narrowing of what a Hate-Crime should be limited.

"Insinuates or Proposes" is what has always been called "Assault" and only when violence was added did it become "Assault & Battery".

In a land where every person no matter, skin, creed etc. is protected already by a massive law-code, there should not be these additional layers. After all, what is Murder? Surely not a "Love-Crime".

Killing someone because of color, age, money or because they like Country-music is still Murder. In a Murder-trail is Motive important in Conviction? Prior "Assaults" on a victim is damn fine evidence for Convictions in Murder cases. To me, adding that anyone's actions are hateful(of course they are) serves no purpose, except for Political purposes in dividing and not uniting.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 13, 2016 06:24 PM

I was more like talking about hate-crimes invoving freedom of speech, that's why I said "proposing or insinuating violence." (Although we dont see eye to eye on many things, in case of murder, I think we'll both agree, it is quite beyond proposing or insinuating it. )

So, if someone tweets to "torch X group's homes" and there is no doubt that it's not sarcasm or something similar, I am ok with a law that removes that tweet.


____________
Arts but facts - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
markkur
markkur


Responsible
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
posted December 13, 2016 06:27 PM

artu said:
(Although we dont see eye to eye on many things, in case of murder, I think we'll both agree, it is quite beyond proposing or insinuating it. )


Well, that's only because we have the Atlantic between us.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 13, 2016 07:46 PM

artu said:
So, if someone tweets to "torch X group's homes" and there is no doubt that it's not sarcasm or something similar, I am ok with a law that removes that tweet.


what you approve of, is a slippery slope. what can be exploited, will. a step in that direction, is a step in the wrong direction. you're giving authorities direct power over what you or others state, which is a horrible idea. your worry over people commiting crimes because they were given the idea, is misguided at best. people will commit crimes if they want to, and they'll find a reason why. they'll excuse it away if it bothers them, too. in order to understand the nature of a crime, you have to understand the nature of the criminals themselves. the title "criminal", of course, can be replaced by any other title; regarding their actions towards others. i don't strictly mean criminals. you forget the many other factors that guide a person. demonizing only one potential factor, isn't even going to begin to fix the issue that creates the criminal themselves.

just because people are stupid and can be led, doesn't excuse the fact that they ALLOWED themselves to be led. therein lies the actual blame.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 13, 2016 08:09 PM

But I was not talking about demonizing one factor or putting all the blame on "the invitation" to torch, was I? The question is should it be penalized or not?

So, the only valid objection is the slippery slope argument. You are right, it is a slippery slope and that is why it should be handled with great care. The impartial mechanisms of constitutional law, (in your country, the Supreme Court for instance) should watch over freedom of speech as well as watching over hate crimes. In practicality, there will always be debatable decisions falling over a grey area, some will say "hate-crime" while others say, no, no that one is within the limits of freedom of speech. And when there is extra social sensitivity about a specific conflict, those debates will be more heated. I mean, in the  U.S., racism towards blacks or Mexicans can be a more sensitive issue where as someplace else, Jews may be targeted more. These sensitivities may sometimes cause things "to slip" further than they should, indeed. But categorically, I am not against laws prohibiting direct invitation of violence against a group based on their identity. It is an extremely difficult job to execute such a thing in practicality, with also preserving the freedom of speech, I'm aware of that. But it's not exactly impossible.
____________
Arts but facts - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Salamandre
Salamandre


Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
posted December 13, 2016 08:29 PM

So what's an invitation to violence speech? Half of America told Trump's speeches were hate speeches toward mexicans, but finally all we saw in the end were not Mexicans randomly beaten - give me one link to such physical aggression if you got one, but specific Americans being hurt, beaten and humiliated because they voted Trump. It is clear that everyone is using the "hate" excuse for his own agenda and, objectively, is pure bollocks.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 13, 2016 08:41 PM

I think my example was quite clear, things like that. I don't think any of Trump's words were illegal. The problem with Trump wasnt that he wasn't persecuted because of what he said, the problem was, a candidate of presidency saying those things.
____________
Arts but facts - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 13, 2016 09:02 PM
Edited by fred79 at 21:03, 13 Dec 2016.

artu said:
But I was not talking about demonizing one factor or putting all the blame on "the invitation" to torch, was I? The question is should it be penalized or not?


i wouldn't penalize hate speech, or even someone talking someone else into committing suicide. to me, hate speech is still freedom of speech. it is up to the individual what they want to do with it. as long as the hate speech isn't taken seriously or used by the media to promote the hate agenda, i see no problem with it. people are going to hate, just like people are going to love. who they hate is their business. that said, i still think someone is an idiot if they base their entire judgement on someone simply because of their skin color.

as for pushing suicide, if you are talked into suicide by someone else, then you didn't need to be on this planet anyway; because you're weak and a detriment to the gene pool. that said, if someone committed suicide because of something someone else said, i feel that it is the surviving relatives' job, to dish out the punishment.

long story short, i don't think this country really needs any law other than what we dish out ourselves. law officials and the court should only get involved if things aren't balanced. because balance is key; be it natural or otherwise. and isn't justice about balance?


if you look at our judicial system, you can clearly see it isn't working. especially for white-collar criminals. i see it as a huge waste of our resources, to not flat-out execute white collar criminals. that might help to slow down the corruption pretty quick. of course, we'd have to stay ahead of any changes the corrupt make to circumvent our own brand of punishment.

what gets me, is that there are way too many agencies that make sure that the people follow the government's will, but NONE(that i know of) that make sure that the government follows the will of the people they are supposed to serve.

no, i think the people themselves need to take their power back.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 13, 2016 09:38 PM

Well, not every hate speech is a hate crime and if we're talking about it as a technical term of law, saying you hate someone is note usually considered hate speech either. Declaring "I hate X" is, of course within your rights.

Let's go by example, say you are a gay person, you have a right to education just like anyone else, you got your test scores right and won Y university, which is mostly a conservative environment, now, if there is some fundamentalist in the university wearing a t-shirt that says "all gays will burn in hell, go back to where you came from you AIDS spreading abomination," that's one thing, you can just look over it and say to yourself, "well, what a loser" right? But what if 150 people wear that t-shirt, will you still be able to have an education there, concentrate on the lectures just like anyone else? That's why hate speech as a crime, I mean the one that is a legal term, is usually in function where there is already a rising threat against a group of minority. You can joke all you want about the French in America, and most probably, no on will be lecturing you about hate speech. But if you joke about Mexicans, people may take it with a different spirit. If you wear a t-shirt that says "no brownies wanted here" to your school, that's a whole different level and the board will have a word with you. If 100 people wear such a t-shirt, then, it will become a matter of law. I oversimplified it a little but I guess, I managed to explain why sometimes it's not as plain as "people have a right to love, people have a right to hate."
____________
Arts but facts - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 13, 2016 10:15 PM

artu said:
Let's go by example, say you are a gay person, you have a right to education just like anyone else, you got your test scores right and won Y university, which is mostly a conservative environment, now, if there is some fundamentalist in the university wearing a t-shirt that says "all gays will burn in hell, go back to where you came from you AIDS spreading abomination," that's one thing, you can just look over it and say to yourself, "well, what a loser" right? But what if 150 people wear that t-shirt, will you still be able to have an education there, concentrate on the lectures just like anyone else? That's why hate speech as a crime, I mean the one that is a legal term, is usually in function where there is already a rising threat against a group of minority. You can joke all you want about the French in America, and most probably, no on will be lecturing you about hate speech. But if you joke about Mexicans, people may take it with a different spirit. If you wear a t-shirt that says "no brownies wanted here" to your school, that's a whole different level and the board will have a word with you. If 100 people wear such a t-shirt, then, it will become a matter of law. I oversimplified it a little but I guess, I managed to explain why sometimes it's not as plain as "people have a right to love, people have a right to hate."


lol, "brownies" are junior girl scouts here in the u.s.  if people wear those shirts, they are saying they hate little girls.

but back to the subject matter. i can have my high-jinx later.

when i went to school, i had to deal with all manner of bullies. i physically fought my way through grades 1-5, since i was a little guy(whose lack-of-fashion-skills mommy dressed him) until i got older and shot up to my current height. in middle school, i wasn't allowed to fight anymore, but the bullies were still there. so i used psychology and fear on them to keep them at bay. in high school, i continued in that vein, and was mostly left alone. i was also carrying weapons then.

what is my point? that no matter how many people wear a shirt(or try and beat your ass, or talk snow about you wherever you go), if you can't face that, then you need to toughen up. the world doesn't play nice to people who are different; they never have. trying to get the world to play nice just because someone else said so, isn't going to work. you have to stand up and defend yourself, or at least be ready to. if you can't be bothered to tell those t-shirt wearing garbage to eat snow and die, and be ready to defend yourself as a human being with equal rights, then you don't deserve to have others try and fight your battles FOR you if you're overwhelmed. it's not MY problem that gays aren't accepted by everyone. it's the people who hate gays that have the problem. or should; strictly from a gay perspective. having someone else fight your battles for you, makes you appear weak. and THAT isn't going to make you look good in the public eye(read: the world) now, will it?

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted December 13, 2016 10:28 PM

Well, fred, I dont like people making a fuss over every little thing either but sometimes it's grander than that. I mean, the law is about preserving equal opportunities and preventing unjustified discrimination as well as individual freedom. And to seek justice by law is not exactly "let someone else fight your battles for you." Murder is illegal, and we go to the police when somobody's shot, nobody tells us to toughen up and buy a shotgun instead, do they? As I already said, I think what constitutes a hate speech is a very grey area most of the time, I'm not someone who always agrees with the ones screaming "hate speech" about everything. But I have no strictly categorical objection to the concept. If you're a purist about the matter, being a purist about freedom of speech is not a bad thing to be, be my guest.  
____________
Arts but facts - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
posted December 13, 2016 10:36 PM

well, you've already read my system of law(or idea for it, anyway). if there are enough gays to make a happy-go-lucky parade, then there are enough gays to intimidate those who would harm them. just saying. cut out the middlemen. giving the government more power over people than they already have now, is a horribly sick joke. it should be classified with the dead-baby and child-rapist jokes; that's how bad it is.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This thread is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.0507 seconds