from the why-we-can't-have-nice-things dept.
Jonathon Mahler writes in the NYT that in much the same way that Facebook swept through the dorm rooms of America’s college students a decade ago, the social app Yik Yak, which shows anonymous messages from users within a 1.5-mile radius is now taking college campuses by storm. "Think of it as a virtual community bulletin board — or maybe a virtual bathroom wall at the student union," writes Mahler. "It has become the go-to social feed for college students across the country to commiserate about finals, to find a party or to crack a joke about a rival school." And while much of the chatter is harmless, some of it is not. “Yik Yak is the Wild West of anonymous social apps,” says Danielle Keats Citron. “It is being increasingly used by young people in a really intimidating and destructive way.” Since the app’s introduction a little more than a year ago, Yik Yak has been used to issue threats of mass violence on more than a dozen college campuses, including the University of North Carolina, Michigan State University and Penn State. Racist, homophobic and misogynist “yaks” have generated controversy at many more, among them Clemson, Emory, Colgate and the University of Texas. At Kenyon College, a “yakker” proposed a gang rape at the school’s women’s center.
Colleges are largely powerless to deal with the havoc Yik Yak is wreaking. The app’s privacy policy prevents schools from identifying users without a subpoena, court order or search warrant, or an emergency request from a law-enforcement official with a compelling claim of imminent harm. Esha Bhandari, a staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, argues that "banning Yik Yak on campuses might be unconstitutional," especially at public universities or private colleges in California where the so-called Leonard Law protects free speech. She said it would be like banning all bulletin boards in a school just because someone posted a racist comment on one of the boards. In one sense, the problem with Yik Yak is a familiar one. Anyone who has browsed the comments of an Internet post is familiar with the sorts of intolerant, impulsive rhetoric that the cover of anonymity tends to invite. But Yik Yak’s particular design can produce especially harmful consequences, its critics say. “It’s a problem with the Internet culture in general, but when you add this hyper-local dimension to it, it takes on a more disturbing dimension,” says Elias Aboujaoude.” “You don’t know where the aggression is coming from, but you know it’s very close to you.”
Related Stories
After bans from Apple and Google, Sarahah debuts Enoff, an iOS app for anonymous feedback at work
Sarahah, the anonymous messaging app founded in Saudi Arabia that became an unexpected viral sensation with teens, clocking up over 300 million registered users before getting banned by Apple and Google over bullying, is making a return to the App Store — but not as you might think.
The startup has launched a new, free iOS app called Enoff (pronounced "enough") aimed at organizations, tapping into the wave of employee activism and speaking out about unfair practices to provide a way for people in a team to give anonymous, one-way feedback to bosses and human resources reps. An Android version of Enoff is coming "very soon," according to CEO and founder Zain al-Alabdin Tawfiq.
Available also on the web, the aim is to provide a way to give feedback in cases of harassment, corruption and other tricky workplace situations where employees might fear repercussions for speaking out.
Easy way to monetize app: allow bosses to pay to unmask users.
Also at Wired.
Previously: Hit App Sarahah Quietly Uploads Your Address Book
Related: Anonymous Social App Raises Controversy on College Campuses
Square Hires Yik Yak's Engineers, Leaving Fewer Than 10 Employees Behind
Japan's Recruit Holdings Co. Acquires Glassdoor for $1.2 Billion
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:38PM
Best thing they did was get banned. Our local school district sent out its usual jackboot email about newly banned ipad apps and this was one, which resulted in skyrocketing popularity of course. Best thing they ever did was get on the banned list.
I put it on my phone and lurked awhile at home and work (both near colleges) Despite the lurid propaganda that its worse than 4chan /b/ and garbage like that, I can assure you its mostly morons saying stupid stuff and nothing really interesting is ever said. All I really learned is the average intelligence level of the average app using college kid is apparently extremely low. Lets just say the app looked like youtube comments or instructables in the old days.
The closest thing to the reported terrorism I saw was:
1) Some argument between a normal person and a SJW about some student's views in a sociology class they were apparently both in (you never get the whole story obvious)
2) Every freaking time it snowed some practical joker would post that school is cancelled and then 50 gullible idiots would start asking questions and arguing. Seriously, how dumb are these kids the fifth time someone tries this?
It was fun to lurk for awhile. Give it a try?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:42PM
The whole story isn't needed. The Social Justice Warrior is always inherently wrong.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:53PM
The whole story isn't needed. The Social Justice Warrior is always inherently wrong.
In a Gray world, Black or White are the only inherently wrong answers.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:00PM
When dealing with Social Justice Warriors, there is no gray. They are always wrong.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:24PM
Its a good thing there's no such thing then, except with the definition made obvious from how its used of "everyone who disagrees with me".
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:33PM
Social Justice Warriors do exist. That cannot be denied.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:48PM
Yes, people that disagree with you definitely exist.
(Score: 2, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:53PM
No, SJWs are a distinct group of people, with certain traits specific to them. They're often highly supportive of political correctness, and promote giving advantages to allegedly "disadvantaged" social groups even when doing so causes harm to society as a whole. When they disagree with somebody, they don't just disagree, but they go out of their way to actively suppress anything and everything that they dislike.
One can disapprove of SJWs without trying to suppress them. Mere disapproval of SJWs does not make one a SJW, too. The GP clearly doesn't agree with SJWs. But the GP isn't trying to prevent SJWs from being able to express the ideas that they wish to express. That means that the GP is missing one of the key components of the SJW philosophy: the unrelenting destruction of anything that they dislike or disagree with.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:09AM
As evidenced from "examples" like these, [reddit.com] 'real' SJWs are people who are bigoted against whites, heteros, or men; in other words, bigoted against people who have been discriminating and bigoted against everyone else forever and now these hypocritical, entitled assholes with superiority
complexes are freaking out because they're finally getting a taste of their own medicine. Call a bigot a bigot, no need to invent a new word for "bigoted against straight/white/males" except for the ability to use it exactly how it is being used, as an ad hominem used solely to label and demonize everyone who disagrees with them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @04:38AM
So, let me sum up: "I am not a racist because SJW." Is that about it?
no need to invent a new word for "bigoted against straight/white/males"
Then what is SJW, besides someone who disagrees with your straight white maleness?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:39PM
> When dealing with Social Justice Warriors, there is no gray. They are always wrong.
That would appear to make you a social justice warrior.
Did I just get Poe'd? [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:47PM
>>They (SJWs) are alwasy wrong.
I thought it was "When you are arguing with a SJW, **you** are always wrong."
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 2) by jbWolf on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:26AM
Pretty awesome. I'm adding this to my list of quotes.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:56PM
The whole story isn't needed. The Social Justice Warrior is always inherently wrong.
LOL the comedy of it was I think it was a remedial math class (reading between the lines) and the SJW battle had nothing to do directly with the class or the class discussion initially, it was some student asking a lot of dumb questions in lecture.
It started off as one of those things we've all suffered thru in uni where theres gotta be "that kid" who can't tell the difference between lecture hours and office hours pissing off the other 199 students in the lecture ... and like 50 posts later of slinging shit (and they were all pretty incompetent at it) it turned into a debate about male privilege and quotas and just SJW BS.
Those kids were so dumb (on both sides) that they couldn't even have a good flamewar. What is this world coming to?
I remember it well because it was only a few weeks ago and it was possibly the most interesting thing that ever happened on yik yak in my area. Which is why I ended up uninstalling it. Not even interesting enough to lurk.
Of course about 50% of the remaining posts were "I'm so drunk" "I'm so high" "I'm so hung over" and a lot of "Ugh the cafeteria has baked chicken again" type of whining.
I suspect the true reason school officials hate the app is a large fraction of the posts make it look like all the students do is get baked and complain about the food in the cafeteria. Which may very well be true, but the school officials don't want to broadcast it especially during campus tour weekends and stuff like that.
The app had a lot of moronity and flamewars, which is sometimes OK, but not much entertaining moronity and flamewars.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:59PM
sociology class
remedial math class
I am a little fuzzy on how the flamewar got started but it doesnt matter anyway.
(Score: 4, Funny) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:06AM
Hey, looks like an SJW [urbandictionary.com] went through and modded all the anti-SJW posts Troll. How apt.
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:04AM
> Hey, looks like an SJW went through and modded all the anti-SJW posts Troll. How apt.
Because accusing people you disagree with of being dishonest in their opinions is totally not trolling.
(Score: 1, Troll) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:49PM
Oh look, there it is now...
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:05PM
I've seen others complain about bad modding here lately
I think I see it happening here in this story
I'm seeing lots of comments that have the wrong mods here
Troll mods that arent trolls
Redundant mods on the first comment expressing an idea
We need names associated with mods
When somebody mods a comment then we should know who did it
Maybe that would make people think twice about doing bad mods
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:01AM
While I appreciate where you're coming from, that would merely make people reluctant to mod at all.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:21AM
No modding is better than bad modding
Modding is a privilege and with privilege comes responsibility
If somebody is modding then that person should be willing to be held accountable for his or her mods
That means letting everybody know which comments he or she modded and how he or she modded them
If someone makes a bad mod then everybody here should know who did it
That also means that if someone makes a good mod then everybody here should know who did it too
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:13PM
Holding someone accountable? Sounds like you advocate starting flame wars if you disagree with the way someone mods you - there simply aren't any practical methods you can use to hold someone accountable on a site like this. "No modding is better than bad modding" is also entirely wrong - you obviously don't remember Usenet so well. If you don't like the mod system that this site (and many others) use, you are welcome to stop visiting it.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:24AM
I know we're getting OT here and I won't complain being modded as such, however, the people with mod points are the ones who have presumably posted enough under their pseudonym to have been modded up enough to have hit the threshold where they are awarded mod points. If a person is willing to come right out and say stuff, why would they be afraid to have their mods associated with their pseudonym when modding is but another form of saying stuff? Everyone hates on AC because AC can't even link a comment to a pseudonym, but right now, every modder is basically posting AC. I say this a person who tries to commit 20% of my mods to downmodding and so probably one of the people more likely to get flak. I just happen to not care.
As for the SJW thing -- I'm pretty insulated from that whole scene being A) old with college a distant memory and B) self-employed, but still, there _are_ real issues that need people to push them. Will there be posers out there pretending to be interested in advancing a social cause? Of course. Does that mean every social cause should be dismissed? Of course not. Evaluate the issue on the facts, rather than on some idiot spouting off (and I include myself in the category of idiots who spout off).
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 11 2015, @10:23AM
A half-way step is that moderators are known only to the recipient of the moderation. This has the useful (IMHO) side effect that if you post A/C, you don't get to see who moderates you.
In the last 24 hours, I've *up* moderated 3 posts by posters who are my *foes*, and I would have no objection to them knowing that whilst I may disagree with almost everything they say, when I agree with it I'm prepared to support it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GeminiDomino on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:12PM
On the other hand, that opens up a whole new kind of "false flag" trolling.
"Hey, GeminiDomino, what's going on with those mods? You're being a right git, but it's not trolling!"
"Oh, that's just FatPhil, he got his panties in a bunch over a flamewar a few days back, and has been revenge modding."
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:12PM
Metamod through shame.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by GeminiDomino on Wednesday March 11 2015, @04:44PM
Sorry, I thought it would be obvious by describing it as a "false flag," but the point is basically that you, in that little narrative, would have done nothing of the sort.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:27PM
However, as both participants in this exchange have accounts, the matter of whether I did in fact mod-bomb you can be settled by a site admin with one very simple query. Were punishment for a false accusation to be something similar to a false "spam" moderation, karma-death and/or a ban, would you risk it? (This is one reason I like the inability to edit comments - once baseless accusations are made, they cannot be retracted - evidence remains clearly visible.)
And in other news, I upmoded another foe earlier today! I'm beginning to wonder whether I choose my foes wisely!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by GeminiDomino on Friday March 13 2015, @10:54PM
However, as both participants in this exchange have accounts, the matter of whether I did in fact mod-bomb you can be settled by a site admin with one very simple query.
A valid point, but the solution suffers from scalability issues - n1 posted the other day about staff members' workloads, so something needing human involvement to settle it might be less of a disincentive knowing how busy that they already are and that it might fall through the cracks.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by GeminiDomino on Friday March 13 2015, @11:54PM
Well it looks like [soylentnews.org] they're going to be handling any mod-bombing by human hands after all (I hadn't seen that story yet when I posted my response).
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:34PM
This site uses a system that acknowledges a simple fact - commenting here is not a privilege because the ability to post comments cannot be taken away. To think any other way is to be naive to the technical nature of the Internet.
However, mod points are a privilege awarded to those who participate in the community in a manner that community approves of overall. They are also a responsibility in that they should be used according to the guidelines laid out when you get them. Having people abuse mod points is far less of a problem than people posting abusive comments in the first place, whatever form that abuse takes.
I would argue that, while imperfect, the modding system here is the most effective system we are currently aware of. It maybe needs a little parameter tweaking every now and then to deal with the steadily-increasing number of users, but I would say I'm perfectly happy with it. My own modding habits involve finding stories I'm not interested in commenting on myself and then modding comments however is appropriate. I don't try to stick to an arbitrary ratio of up/down mods as I find that, overall, the occasions when I do heavily down-mod are far out-weighed by the number of up-mods I use, simply due to the quality of discourse this moderation system encourages - messing with that too much is far more likely to be a very bad thing than a good one.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Arik on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:06PM
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Troll) by Arik on Thursday March 12 2015, @07:49PM
If they actually wanted justice then there would be no need for 'social' to modify (reverse, in this case) justice.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @04:41AM
I did it!!! It was me!! And I would do it again in a second! You are being modded as a troll because you are trolling about being modded as a troll, which makes you a recursive troll, which would be alright if you used *nix! I hope you are happy now that you know who is modding you down!
Yours, AC
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:47PM
We need names associated with mods
When somebody mods a comment then we should know who did it
Maybe that would make people think twice about doing bad mods
The admins and editors know who is modding what. While it's difficult to keep a handle on all mods, it should be fairly clear if some folks are ignoring the moderation guidelines [soylentnews.org] and using mod points to promote their personal agendas rather than improving the quality of discussion.
I'm not sure if the admins have tools (I suspect it would be appropriate DB queries) to look at users' moderation behavior. Presumably someone who mods down more than they mod up might be subject to closer scrutiny.
It wouldn't (I know you guys have tons of work to do, but this might be quite useful in identifying those who abuse the moderation system) hurt to have weekly/biweekly/monthly reports detailing the ratio of upmods to downmods and the frequency of the various types of up/down mods for users. Assuming that most users are responsible and judicious in their moderation behavior, taking a closer look at the outliers might provide good information.
Perhaps this could even be crowdsourced, with the reports being anonymized and an ever-changing group of users identifying those who might be abusing the moderation system.
I don't know enough about how things are set up on the back-end of SN, but since SN is "people", why don't we use that resource to identify those who may be abusing the moderation system and, based on that information, have the admins take action as appropriate.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:09PM
There are all kinds patterns in moderation you can look for.
Like frequency of mods between user accounts, whether up or down.
But before we go off hunting bad actors, how about we decide if there is even a problem in the first place?
A handful of bursty cases isn't a systemic problem, its just a glitch.
At a bare minimum, come up with some well-defined behaviours that we can agree on as being bad for the site and then start running those reports looking for those behaviours over a period of time, like six months and see how frequent they really are.
Then publish those reports and we can all decide it there really is a problem worth bothering with.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:34PM
Sounds like a good plan.
Especially if it limits the hijacking of discussions by those whining about moderation issues.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:48PM
I've seen others complain about bad modding here lately
People always complain. Modding takes a keen eye, there *will* be less-than-ideal-mods. The idea is that the community is self-correcting, and *in general* mods are indicative of a comment's quality; NOT, that ALL moderations should be held as the word of FSM.
We need names associated with mods
From the AC...
Redundant mods on the first comment expressing an idea
I beleive you refer to this [soylentnews.org], and the redundant part was "how is this news?" which had been discussed previously [soylentnews.org] in this thread, though I'll note the rest of the comment was interesting at least to me.
When somebody mods a comment then we should know who did it. Maybe that would make people think twice about doing bad mods
This has been discussed, and I'm under the impression it would do more harm than good, but I'm still not sure. We do have a system setup to help us spot excessive down-modding (abuse), but we really aren't interested in being the "mod police". Feel free to continue discussing, but please consider that this can exacerbate the problem [soylentnews.org], i.e. spark the mod-wars.
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:38PM
I went through college years back, and for all of the talk about the importance of tenure and the freedom to express controversial ideas that it supposedly allows, it was a place where free speech was crushed whenever possible. It was nearly as bad as Hacker News and Reddit in terms of pretending to support free speech, yet doing everything possible to prevent it. It wasn't just the professors, but much of the student leadership, too. What is it about academics, both professors and students, that makes them act so hypocritically about free speech?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:45PM
that makes them act so hypocritically about free speech?
They only want to hear their own free speech. Not others.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:25AM
I'm not one to toot my own horn, as it's usually full of bile and shit anyway, but I'm going to link [soylentnews.org] to my latest journal entry because it and its comments pretty much provide a troll-free explanation of the article and discussion.
I didn't even do anything there but quote a feminist and allow You, the community, to comment.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:15PM
I bet that an academic modded down the parent comment, which ended up being an act of censorship that actually served to prove the parent right! Academics do hate free expression!
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:31PM
Your incessant use of "proof by repeated assertion" will never result in moderation actually being censorship. The community is self-correcting so legitimately bad moderations will be corrected by the community over the course of a couple hours at most, but not agreeing with the moderation does not mean the moderation was bad, and downmoderation will never be censorship no matter how many times you try to say it is.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:36PM
Moderation is in fact an act of censorship.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:44PM
Censorship is in fact an act of moderation.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:56PM
Moderation and censorship are one and the same.
Censorship and moderation are one and the same.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:01PM
Not content to argue endlessly by repeating the same statements over and over as you did on Sunday, you now think that it is a valid and constructive form of discourse in this story. Why don't you join us on #Soylent and discuss with us your problems and how you feel we should address them?
But, for the record, censorship would involve people being unable to see your comments, whereas moderation places a value of worth upon them. However, whatever their worth, all comments can be seen my all community members if they wish so to do. Now, would you like to argue constructively and intelligently why you feel that is not so?
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:46PM
As your man Goldwater liked to say: "moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue".
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:54PM
No, moderation is a meta-comment. Refusing to allow people to meta-comment is as bad as limiting their right to comment.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:58PM
Moderation is not a form of expression.
Moderation is a socially harmful activity similar to molestation and murder.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:54PM
obviously, you are funning with us.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:24AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:16AM
Even though he's an obvious troll, I feel compelled to not let his proof by repeated assertion gain any ground. As Faux News has proven, if you repeat the same garbage over and over again people will eventually accept it as fact. Better to not even allow it the chance to gain ground by challenging it every time that garbage presents itself.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:12AM
As we've ascertained, moderation is a form of censorship.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @04:57AM
> I feel compelled to not let his proof by repeated assertion gain any ground.
The guy seems to show up for a a week or two and then disappear for a few months, perhaps his medication runs out.
I think it is interesting that michael crawford has also entered a period of manic posting. I don't remember if their cycles synced up last time though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:16AM
Lunatics : Moon. Tides, Werewolves, Bill O'Reilly. Correlation does not equal causation, but something is definitely going on!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:12AM
obviously, you are funning with us.
Yes, but sadly it will not at all be apparent to the poor bastards that keep getting modded down in liberal, academic, Social Justice Warrior (I wonder, does that have uniform or an Ironman suit to go with it?) acts of censorship and oppression trying to keep them from expressing their deep and tender feeling about black teenage "thugs" and the right to keep and arm bears, and Biblical basis for child rape.
The Goldwater was particularly good. Can I try?
"Liberty, in the pursuit of Rand Paul, is a vice!" Barry, however, came around in his later years.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:01PM
Incorrect - despite your post being modded to the lowest possible score with the worst possible label, I can still read it. Just because you say something doesn't mean it's worth listening to and moderation enables the community as a whole to make that judgement call for itself/each other. You don't like it? Comment somewhere else without moderators.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:10AM
The point here is that gibberish is not speech! It is apparent that some posters have nothing to say, so modding them into oblivion infringes on no one's rights. You see, to have a right to free speech, you must be capable of actual speech. Academics are experts in language, it is what they do. So they can recognize someone blathering talking points or racist opinions that they do not even understand, more quickly than the rest of us. This is not speech. I mean, it is not like Sheriff Joe, or Cliven Bundy, or Bill O'Reilly actually have anything to say, so we can point, and giggle, but that is just cruel. It is better to just keep them out of the public sphere so they do not embarrass themselves. Censorship? Or Mercy? Take your pick! But your pick will definitely tell! So choose wisely.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:50PM
So this story has been making the rounds and I am curious about Soylent's take. So my question doesn't pertain to Soylent posting it, but to the "news" in general:
How is this news? It just seems odd to me that this got picked up by the media.
A new messaging App gets some Trolls. That certainly hasn't happened to every single thing ever placed on the internet...
Am I crazy to think this is just some viral marketing BS?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:55PM
It's news because there's the quasi-anonymous aspect to it. Although online quasi-anonymity is not a new concept, it's a concept that's entirely new to a whole generation of people who were raised under the Facebook/Google+ "real identity" nonsense. They were never exposed to the concept of anonymity during their formative years online, so the existence of it is news to these people.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:56PM
It isn't even anonymous due to the fact that YikYak obviously logs a lot of user info. For this app to be done right, there should be no login, no logs, and a server way off in the middle of some country extremely hostile to US interference.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday March 11 2015, @10:50AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:57AM
This is a nice demonstration of how free speech is supposed to work. If it offends you, too bad. If it's illegal, get a warrant. This comes under the category of "I will defend to the death his tight to say it", where the content of this app may be offensive, stupid, or other, but it's free.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:56PM
"How is this news?"
It's not
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @09:58PM
Are you saying that Hugh Pickens is gewg?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by LordFrito on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:34PM
Am I crazy to think this is just some viral marketing BS?
All I know is I keep finding duplicates of Slashdot articles on Soylent, and we all know about how Dice Holdings operates.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:40PM
Hugh Pickens (or somebody using the name Hugh Pickens) appears to submit stories to both sites.
Do you have evidence to suggest that Hugh Pickens is associated with Dice? If you do, then you should present it to us. We prefer to deal with facts here, rather than speculation.
(Score: 1) by LordFrito on Wednesday March 11 2015, @10:54AM
Let me be clear that was not an accusation of anyone or any post in particular... I usually don't even read the submitter's name. By no means am I associating Hugh Pickens, or anyone else here, with Dice.
The Dice comment was just me venting about a vague general feeling that everywhere I go on the internet I'm being force fed the same articles -- Soylent being no exception unfortunately (sometimes).
Need to be more careful with my words
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mrcoolbp on Wednesday March 11 2015, @04:52AM
We don't check their queue before posting stories and I'm not surprised there's an overlap in submission content. We can't see what they have in the future queue, nor would it affect our editorial decisions. Look at the comment count here, clearly this is at least of some interest to those that hang out here.
(Score:1^½, Radical)
(Score: 1) by LordFrito on Wednesday March 11 2015, @10:57AM
Agreed that the article is of interest, heck I already read it once on the site. Just feels weird lately seeing the same stories pop up everywhere. I'd swear it's happening more often year over year. Then again, maybe I'm just getting old and cratchety.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:24AM
It's news because the people most targeted by it are female university students, OUR MOST VICTIMIZED POPULATION.
WON'T SOMEBODY *PLEASE* THINK OF THE GENDER STUDIES MAJORS!?!!!
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:50AM
*dons tin-foil hat*
Maybe this is just a smear campaign to raise FUD about online anonymous = bad! to hand-wave away the surveillance/tracking?
I'm just throwing that out as devil's advocate. :-)
It may have just been the article = online!+ online bully app!
Can it be spoofed? How hard is it to hack, crack, or otherwise 'fold, spindle, and mutalate' it?
As for myself, I was just curious what all the hoopla was about.
That was my mistake...another 'Hugh Pickens' masterpiece.
Asshattery, assclowns, and trolls online...on a campus near you! News at 11!
Meh. Anyone that hasn't figured out that freedom of speech isn't always pleasant/agreeable from their POV, deserves to be surprised.
Welcome to humanity. Once you crawl out of mom's basement into the rest of the world, you actually get to interact with these same types!
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:47PM
Nice piece of devil's advocate actually - good thing to keep an eye on, well thought that man.
Due to the app's popularity in schools, I think it was probably inevitable that some harassment would take place and some parents/teachers/whoever would blame the app rather than the people who did it. Arbitrary bans on anything by any authority tends to make news, especially thanks to the OMG-pointless-censorship-online-by-naive-idiots angle.
I remember being bullied at school 20 years ago. At least I knew I was out of their sphere of influence at home, at a mate's place, any place that wasn't school. These days, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to be a socially active school kid without creating conduits for asshats to harass you 24/7. I get the whole "if you don't like it, don't use it" angle, but many kids would equate that with committing social suicide and condemning themselves to being an outsider who's always one step behind the in-crowd for the rest of their school careers. Remember how long that felt when you were a kid in school? Now imagine that length of time as a social outcast - I know exactly what that feels like, as I imagine do a number of the people reading this.
(Score: 4, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:01PM
The Matthew Mullen story linked in the summary above shows how police in America vastly overreact to every threat of violence regardless of the humorous nature of whatever is said.
If anything, the panicky over-response by law enforcement did far more to terrorize students than a quickly deleted joke. Law enforcement will continue to do this whenever they get a chance, since there's no penalty for doing so, versus being sued for ignoring or minimizing an extraordinarily rare real problem. They know how to make a show of force but they lack any semblance of subtlety to avoid causing fear among the potentially affected populous.
As a result of his plea [he could have been] responsible for the costs of all police agents responding to his post in the county-wide area, up to $20,000, [statenews.com] but thankfully that was cut down. How do they figure the cost of the response? Do they not have cops on duty to reassign from writing tickets?
We are a country scared of our own shadows.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:08PM
As someone that is in the area and has gone through several of these 'scares' it is identical to what unannounced firedrills are like. Only authority figures and the exceptionally sheltered take it seriously. Everybody else sees it as either an inconvenience or a lucky relief from boredom. Either way it is just a time to socialize and goof-off even though all authority figures are trying to terrify us into believing Armageddon is about to happen.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:22PM
The law enforcement apparatus is put in a difficult position today. If they don't react, and what appears to be a joke ends up being a dangerous threat, then their balls will be put in a vice by people like you. If they do react, and what appears to be a dangerous threat turns out to be a joke, then their balls will be put in a vice by people like you.
As you can see, their balls end up in the vice either way, because that's the destiny people like you have chosen for them. You've incentivized the situation so they're better off having their balls in the vice for overreacting, than to have their balls in the vice for not reacting quickly or strongly enough.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:31AM
Isn't this why their were hired for? If they don't like it, free for them to resign.
(but what if they like it? grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:48AM
Then they can pay for it like everybody else.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday March 11 2015, @07:19PM
This is nonsense. You're saying they should overreact to jokes because the jokes might not be jokes and then they would be criticized. In reality, in a country that's supposed to be "the land of the free and the home of the brave," they should err on the side of freedom, not safety.
What about all the people who aren't issuing threats? We need to investigate them, because threat or no threat, they could be terrorists! Violate everyone's privacy (already happening) and ruin everyone's lives! There's no such thing as an acceptable risk!
As you can see, their balls end up in the vice either way, because that's the destiny people like you have chosen for them.
How did I choose that destiny? They have personally chosen to react in this horrible way, and I do not control the idiots who believe we should have safety at all costs.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:35PM
> shows how police in America vastly overreact to every threat of violence
That's because, for all practical purposes terrorism does not exist in the US.
But turn on the news and that's all we fucking hear about.
And the police departments gets millions of dollars in DHS funds to fight terrorism.
So any time there is something that even vaguely looks like terrorism they have tons of incentive both moneywise and mental priming to go full rambo.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:10PM
TFS:
The example of a threat of mass violence was a joke post which I'm guessing if read in context with the rest of the comments, would be seen as exactly that. One of the problems with living under an authoritarian government however, is the death of humor. The poor kid sentenced to probation posted a stupid joke and then thought "shit" and removed it a minute or two later, which was a minute or two too late. Just the notion that a would-be school shooter who is serious about shooting is going to post publicly the plans is laughable.
Now this poor kid has to do probation (could have been worse of course) but beyond that, his employment prospects suck considering how little google forgets. He will forever be saddled with enormous consequences for making a stupid joke. If I had to pay such consequences for every stupid joke I ever told, I'd be dead 10x over.
tangent: Periodic table jokes.
What's a dairy farmer's favorite element? Cowcium.
What's a police officer's favorite element? Copper.
Mamma's and Pappa's favorite element? Californium.
Drink a few beers and start making them up with friends -- they seem funnier then.
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:13PM
This is an obscure joke. For those who don't know, it's a reference to the Red Hot Chili Pepper's song entitled "Californication".
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:40PM
+1 funny
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:42PM
> This is an obscure joke. For those who don't know, it's a reference to the Red Hot Chili Pepper's song entitled "Californication".
Uh, no. [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by GeminiDomino on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:28PM
Ye flipping gods, the fact that I got the actual reference made me feel very, very old. :(
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:40PM
Now this poor kid has to do probation (could have been worse of course) but beyond that, his employment prospects suck considering how little google forgets. He will forever be saddled with enormous consequences for making a stupid joke. If I had to pay such consequences for every stupid joke I ever told, I'd be dead 10x over.
Consequences for someone's actions? What is this world coming to?
Making a public threat of violence, whether it's a joke or not, is going to get a negative response. And it should. Period. If every stupid joke you told involved threatening public safety then chances are you would have stopped after one or you'd be locked up right now.
In a society where mass shootings happen frequently enough that we are both numb to them and must take them extremely seriously no one gets a free pass for threatening the public. You can't blame people for taking you at your word when you say you're going to kill people. If you're stupid enough to say it then you're going to own it for the rest of your life.
Free speech doesn't mean free of responsibility or free of the consequences of your speech.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:47PM
This meme is one of the most disturbing ones out there. Free speech inherently requires one to be free of consequences. That's what the "free" part means: free of consequences. If there are consequences, then there is not freedom, and so we are not dealing with free speech.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:08PM
It's obvious from your stance that you don't understand the meaning of either of the concepts of "Free Speech" or "consequences". The former can be attributed to ignorance of the law. The latter can only be due to immaturity.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:11PM
Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. Discuss the issues at hand. Do not resort to insulting people when you have been proven wrong.
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:19PM
Use a dictionary [reference.com], Mr. Ad Hominem.
Although, I will admit that I was unaware of the 'Leonard Law' post-comment.
Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:33PM
The latter can only be due to immaturity.
Only? It couldn't be ignorance? It couldn't be a different understanding of the context of this thread? It must be "immaturity," a vague and subjective term?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:24AM
Speech that immediately endangers others' lives or compels others to inflict harm is not "free speech". These are things we, as a society, have decided do not count as "free speech" and need to have consequences. Remember, your rights end where another's rights begin. Your freedoms do not include the freedom to inflict harm upon others, be it physically, verbally, emotionally*, or spiritually.
* Yes, some people have thinner skin than others, and its up to society, not the individual, to decide where the line should be on whats considered harmful.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday March 11 2015, @07:00PM
Speech that immediately endangers others' lives or compels others to inflict harm is not "free speech".
Authoritarian courts have ruled that. However, their logic makes no sense, as it is always other people's *actions* that endanger others, not the speech itself. You are personally responsible for how you choose to react to other people's speech, and everyone else is the same.
The first amendment in the US also lists no such exceptions.
Remember, your rights end where another's rights begin.
There is no right to not be offended and no right to have your own actions blamed on the speaker. The sooner society becomes more logical, the better.
physically, verbally, emotionally*, or spiritually.
Verbally? Emotionally? Spiritually? The last one doesn't even make sense. None of these can be harmed by other people's speech, but how you choose to react to said speech.
* Yes, some people have thinner skin than others, and its up to society, not the individual, to decide where the line should be on whats considered harmful.
Society? The society that chooses/chose mass surveillance, the TSA, slavery, Japanese internment camps, the drug war, DUI checkpoints, numerous unjust wars, and countless other horrendous things? Or other societies which violate people's fundamental rights in similar or different ways? The same society that forms an irrational lynch mob whenever they think children are in danger? I'm sure our fundamental liberties will be protected by this amazingly logical and principled society. The majority do not and should not have absolute power, and fortunately, they don't.
But this is nonsense, anyway. If someone gets offended, that is on them and no one else. I'll gladly take freedom and 'risk' other people saying things that I don't like.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @04:50AM
> Free speech inherently requires one to be free of consequences.
By that logic no one can should ever be able to gain anything by their speech - not just direct payments, but also less tangible benefits like improved reputation, fame and celebrity.
Or are you one of those hypocrites who thinks positive consequences deserve an exception, but negative consequences are unacceptable?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday March 11 2015, @06:50PM
There is no "should." If someone *chooses* to react to your speech in a way that benefits you, then that is their choice. It's the same if someone reacts in a negative way. Whatever actions they take in response to your speech, if any, are on them.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:50PM
Context. You can tell a lot from context and taking stuff out of that context is a form of lying. Let me quote the pertinent section:
Here's an example. Let's say, I'm out camping somewhere and I said:
"I'm going to kill you suckers!!"
Looks really bad, unless you heard the whole thing:
*slaps thigh* x10
"fucking mosquitoes ..."
"I'm going to kill you suckers!!"
Taken totally out of context you could call it a threat, but that would be a lie, as I only threatened mosquitoes and that isn't much of a crime. Maybe what should have happened here, is a little common sense. The cops investigate, discover it was really nothing, and say "don't be a dork next time" and leave it at that. No need to ruin a person's life -- the real punishment is google here -- over something inconsequential. As for the fraidy-cats -- crime is at an all time low. Go cower under your beds rather than ruin everything for everyone else.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:18PM
Consequences for someone's actions?
There were no actions on his part, just on the part of government thugs.
Making a public threat of violence, whether it's a joke or not, is going to get a negative response.
I don't mind negative responses. I do, however, mind government thugs harassing people over jokes, like the guy who was harassed over a bomb joke on Twitter.
This is just yet another reason to oppose mass surveillance. While your friends and family may know you're joking, government thugs will not take it as a joke, and even something said in private will be used to destroy you, let alone something said in 'public.'
In a society where mass shootings happen frequently enough that we are both numb to them and must take them extremely seriously no one gets a free pass for threatening the public.
Nonsense. Mass shootings only seem frequent. I'd be more worried about car accidents.
And what about all the people who *don't* make these threats? They could be potential terrorists! You think the only ones who could be mass shooters are the ones who issue threats? Please. The silent ones are likely the most dangerous. We should be investigating them all, because there's no such thing as a risk that's too small for us to care about! I want my perfect safety and I want it now, no matter how likely it is that the threat was a joke, or how many people's freedoms I have to destroy in the process!
Free speech doesn't mean free of responsibility or free of the consequences of your speech.
It does mean freedom from being punished by the government however, or there would be literally no point to freedom of speech. Using your standard, even North Korea has freedom of speech; people just don't have freedom from the consequences of their speech.
And there are no consequences. The consequences always come from how others *choose* to react to your speech. Now *that* is where personal responsibility comes into play. And these government thugs are personally responsible for their actions.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:40AM
Like the "I'm going to destroy America and dig up Marilyn Monroe" [forbes.com].
(you should be seriously intelligence impaired to think this constitutes a "public threat of violence". The sort of impairment the TSA/NSA et al. is exhibiting)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:45AM
Even Fauxnews [foxnews.com] is above that level of intelligence.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:27PM
This is news how? We turned colleges into "The Camps" with political correctness running amok, everyone if terrified to open their mouths, trying to get a date is an open invitation to a felony record, etc. Then an app shows up that allows the illusion of being able to blow off steam and remain anonymous and anyone is surprised it caught on? Really?
Of course it is only an illusion as will soon become apparent. Maybe, and only maybe, if you post to it from an offshore VPN but I wouldn't trust that either since without a crapton of traffic to hide in they will start tracking you via traffic analysis. Maintaining the fear of accidental CrimeThink is the primary purpose of Higher Education these days, they will invest whatever it takes to keep the chains on.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @10:38PM
Who is this "we" that you speak of? College wasn't always like it is today, and it was some very specific groups of people who have caused it to become what it is today. The ones responsible for this are leftist Baby Boomers and their spawn (today's Social Justice Warriors). Pretty much everyone else disagrees with the current state of affairs.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jmorris on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:15AM
Pretty much everyone else disagrees with the current state of affairs.
Maybe, but if they do, they do their disagreeing very quietly. Evil flourishes when Good is cowed into submission.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:30AM
Pretty much everyone else disagrees with the current state of affairs.
Except the baby boomers and their SJW spawn, which is about 90% of the population so I understand why you feel so paranoid, lonely, and desperate. You are not one of the "we". But hey, I just heard of this great social networking app, where you can say rude things to a lot of people in your immediate vicinity without them knowing it was you! Would that make you happier?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 10 2015, @11:08PM
How the heck is Mr. Morris' comment "Redundant"? Whoever modded it that should never mod again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:45PM
If your attempts at getting dates lead to felony convictions then you are probably doing it all wrong. Just sayin'.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @01:12AM
Predictably, this story has brought out comments from the usual paranoid, basement-dwelling crowd. "Waaaah! I have a right to say whatever I want to say! It's in the Constituuuution! Those nasty SJWs are trampling on my rights!"
Listen up, dolts! While the 1st Amendment gives you broad powers to express yourselves, this does not include the right to make threats of violence including, among other things, bombings and gang rapes. These are the people you have galloped in to defend. If you find yourself making such threats, then it might be a good idea to rethink what you want to say before you broadcast it to the world. If one of your friends is making such threats, get yourself some new (less shitty) friends. For those of you still riven-through to the core with angst over the thought of weighing your words before broadcasting them publicly, the intention of the 1st Amendment was to allow people to have honest and frank exchanges of ideas, without interference from the government; it doesn't protect you from the disapproval of others when you make threats of violence. Also, as those of you who have ever studied any informal logic should know, argumentum ad hominem and argumentum ad baculum are both logical fallacies. Neither one is worthy to be championed by someone claiming be in favour of "freedom of expression". In between those constraints, I believe there is ample room for freedom of expression (whether it be in-person or anonymous) without threats of violence to those that disagree with you. Oh, and jokes about school massacres and gang rapes are not funny. If you think they are, get therapy.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:06AM
Let's actually look at the text of the First Amendment:
Nowhere does it say anything about the restrictions you listed. In fact, it very clearly states that restrictions are unacceptable.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:10PM
Indeed - it does allow these people to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, but it doesn't protect them from the compensation lawsuits by all (the people injured / families of those crushed to death) in the stampede to the exit that followed. The problem in this case is that taking individuals to task for their inappropriate yet constitutionally protected free speech is, thanks to the scale of the problem, rather more difficult than over-reaching authority to ban the platform that speech takes place on.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday March 11 2015, @07:22PM
Indeed - it does allow these people to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, but it doesn't protect them from the compensation lawsuits by all (the people injured / families of those crushed to death) in the stampede to the exit that followed.
Wrong. Since the government enforces those court decisions, it's still the government violating their rights. Also, how people chose to react to the speech is on them, not anyone else.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 11 2015, @08:39PM
You misunderstand - the right to free speech was not violated, the hypothetical guy yelling fire was not prevented from doing so, just taken to task for an action that caused physical harm to others - in this case, he committed incitement to bodily harm / manslaughter. No-one would have hurt anyone if some idiot hadn't lied to them that their lives were in danger.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday March 11 2015, @08:55PM
There was no action. The people who chose to panic are the ones who took harmful actions.
No-one would have hurt anyone if some idiot hadn't lied to them that their lives were in danger.
No one would be hurt if the people hadn't panicked in a way that led to people getting hurt. It's time to stop believing everything you hear.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:17PM
SCOTUS disagrees with you. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday March 11 2015, @07:15PM
The courts also once said that arresting war protestors was a-okay. The courts also ruled many horrendous things when it came to slavery. The courts have also gotten in the way of protecting individuals' privacy from the government on numerous occasions. And those Japanese internment camps were lovely. They may even approve mass surveillance, but they would be wrong in doing so. There are endless examples.
The courts are often filled with authoritarians who want to give the government more power. Know this: They are often wrong, and they are certainly wrong here. Read the first amendment and tell me where it lists any restrictions. What they are doing is modifying the constitution with invisible ink so the government can have more power, not interpreting it as they should. Mindlessly appealing to the courts like a drone will not win you any arguments against logical people.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:09PM
While it is true that the courts sometimes do get it wrong, it is, at best, debatable whether they got it wrong in this context. (Actually, no, I don't think they got it at all wrong in this context.) So, explain to us, why do you feel you have a constitutional right to make threats of murder and rape against others? Exactly what legal theory are you operating under that this is a free exchange of ideas that needs to be respected and/or protected under the constitution?
So, are you OK with people issuing death threats against you or your family? You wouldn't have any problem with that? The police and the courts should step back and let it continue, in the name of protecting free speech? Really?!? Also, the Constitution, Article III, section 2, paragraph 2 [archives.gov] says "In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Also, according to Marbury v. Madison [wikipedia.org] the SCOTUS has a long-established precedent to interpret the Constitution. What other legal authority do you think we should appeal to? I'm sure you will have a logical answer to this.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:17PM
So, explain to us, why do you feel you have a constitutional right to make threats of murder and rape against others? Exactly what legal theory are you operating under that this is a free exchange of ideas that needs to be respected and/or protected under the constitution?
The first amendment. I refer you to the post above that quotes it in full.
So, are you OK with people issuing death threats against you or your family? You wouldn't have any problem with that?
Chances are, I wouldn't like it, but I do not believe the government has legitimate authority to stop them unless they take actual action.
The police and the courts should step back and let it continue, in the name of protecting free speech?
Correct. And the constitution.
Also, according to Marbury v. Madison the SCOTUS has a long-established precedent to interpret the Constitution.
What they're doing is outright modifying it, not interpreting it. The Supreme Court's interpretations can be and are wrong. If they're always correct, how is it that their decisions can later be overturned? Does reality magically change? The idea that their interpretations matter more/are always right is a legal fiction borne out of the necessity for there to be some authority figure that has more say than most people; it does not mean they are always correct. When they get it wrong--which they can, have, do, and will--it's up to The People to minimize the harm they do and hopefully future judges will overturn the ruling. There is no such single tribunal.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:23PM
Who the hell keeps modding you up? It appears to me that, in the span of less than five minutes, you managed to post your reply AND get modded up. That is a mighty strange coincidence, no? You wouldn't happen to be using sockpuppets, would you?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday March 12 2015, @12:55AM
I don't even see where I got modded up. My karma is at 50, so I start at score 2.
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday March 12 2015, @05:01AM
Reread the 1st amendment. It only limits Congress from passing laws limiting speech. Individual States were not limited by it, common law was not changed by it, and it is a long standing part of the common law that threatening harm can be dealt with by the courts. It was also passed at a time when duels were at least defacto legal, so insulting someone could have immediate severe consequences which led to a very polite society.
It can be argued that the 14th amendment expands the 1st but it is not very clear and besides it was passed with a bunch of SJWs pointing arms at some of the States legislators. Being forced to pass a law by armed SJWs doesn't sound very democratic or Constitutional, or are you going to claim that some kinds of social justice are fine?
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday March 12 2015, @08:13AM
Reread the 1st amendment. It only limits Congress from passing laws limiting speech.
14th, and it is clear to me. The states cannot and should not violate people's fundamental liberties. It never ceases to amaze me when people suggest that it's all that much better when a state government violates your rights. I suppose it's easier to move out of a state, but for most people, that is nigh impossible, and you could just tell 'complainers' to move out of the entire US following that sort of logic. Having to move to avoid having your fundamental liberties violated isn't a good thing.
or are you going to claim that some kinds of social justice are fine?
I don't recall claiming that all social justice is bad. I agree with the actual effects the amendment has, but I would have preferred if it was passed in a more peaceful manner.
Still, it was foolish to leave the states to their own devices to that extent in the first place. States' rights are important, but not to the extent that they should be constitutionally able to violate your most basic liberties (though the states do have their own constitutions).
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:17AM
Sign me up for one of those informal logic classes.
Typos aside, the issue some people have, myself included, is the lack of proportionate scale in the cited example where some kid is joking around with some other kid, and a single comment taken out of context is used to basically ruin his entire life because google never forgets even if after probation he has a clean record. That is not an appropriate response. It's like killing a shoplifter or chopping off a kid's hand when he gets caught with it in the cookie jar. A two page essay on why stupid jokes are stupid and a reprimand allowing him to keep his anonymity would have been much more appropriate.
Sadly, we live in a world full of informal logic experts like yourself, who are somehow incapable of understanding that a harmless stupid mistake in which no one suffered any actual damage, shouldn't be charged as fucking terrorism. And I'll ad hominem all the fucktards who think it ought to be to my heart's content because you'll are stupid morons. Obviously.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:23AM
Well, informal logic is a thing, but I guess it was just called logic back when I was in college. So, no typo in GP. And yes, obviously I'm an old curmudgeon. Get the fuck off my lawn!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @05:51PM
Actually, I'm the AC you were responding to. And, it's my lawn. So, get the fuck off of it. Right now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @09:17PM
I'm pretty sure this subset of logic was called informal logic long before either you or I were born. My guess is that you are not quite so well acquainted with the subject as you probably think you are. Just sayin'.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:41AM
Without context, threats must be taken at face value. This is where personal responsibility comes in - its his own fault for not thinking how his actions might affect others or how his actions might affect him. At any rate, joking or not, threatening gang rapes and other forms of mass violence are things society has decided we want to discourage, not encourage.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Wednesday March 11 2015, @07:10PM
It's his own fault for how other people *choose* to react to his speech? Is it also his fault that government thugs made the personal decision to harass him?
At any rate, joking or not, threatening gang rapes and other forms of mass violence are things society has decided we want to discourage, not encourage.
If you want to personally discourage that sort of thing, then go ahead. You do not, however, get to have government thugs ruin someone's life.
(Score: 2) by aclarke on Wednesday March 11 2015, @02:26PM
Each society has to struggle with what the balance is between the "right" to self expression vs. the "rights" of the society as a whole. Just because a bunch of rich old white men sat down and decided whenever it was to amend a piece of paper drawn up by a bunch of rich old white men a little earlier doesn't mean this is somehow a piece of social dogma to be handed down unaltered forevermore. The idea is good and, I believe, should be enshrined. Maybe it needs occasional tweaking, though.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:14PM
There is a fairly simple concept that applies here, I think it's called prior restraint - the idea that certain types of speech should be made illegal before the fact rather than prosecuted after the fact - and IIRC (someone help me out here, no time to look this up) it was rejected by Supreme Court. Disclaimer: IANAL, or even American.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday March 11 2015, @08:58AM
Obviously communication technology is too user friendly these days. In earlier days you had to make a mental effort to even figure out there was a forum and another to make communication happen. Everything from getting access to communication equipment, assembling a computer, configuring drivers, install software, configure them, search for answers without help, and of course fail a lot and try again. Most people failed to figure out it was there at all..
So make it hard enough to utter anything in these media that people have to prove that they actually have a brain and uses it.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:20PM
Back in the day (can't believe I just said that, gettin' old) we said "the idiot-proofing of Internet technology will only lead to more idiots using it" and *boy* did that ever come true...
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:33PM
Time to correct that? ;)
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 11 2015, @03:44PM
Already been tried [telegraph.co.uk] ;) There's just too many of them! I can't shake them off! ARGGH!
(Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Wednesday March 11 2015, @12:07PM
Isn't this the dream of every startup, to manufacture "controversy" to get their name in the news? Kudos to whoever pulled this off for this company.
(E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)