Social Media Marketing Boot Camp: April 16

Need Help?

Employers

Join Today or Log in

Jobs

Hiring?
Post your open positions on our job board.
Satisfaction guaranteed. Learn more.

FAQ Contact Us

Courses

June 6, 2013 | An Interactive Online Event
Implement a complete social media campaign in six weeks. Register now.

FAQ Contact Us

Events

June 4, 2013 | San Francisco

Explore how you can — and should — approach Twitter to make the most of it for your brand. Learn from social media pros at the San Francisco Giants, SFGate, and more. Learn more.

News

So What Do You Do, Kelly Day, CEO of Blip?
The woman who heads up the largest independently owned video network tells how she's bringing TV into the digital age. Read more

FAQ Contact Us

Shortcuts: scoop jobs, social media jobs, online courses

Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Another Democrat tries to muzzle free speech

Another Democrat tries to muzzle free speech

Post Reply Back to Forums

1–13 out of 13 messages

Author	Message

cruiser	Posted - 2/21/2013 10:06:12 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Illinois Democrat state senator Ira Silverstein is trying to push a measure that would force anonymous posters on political message boards to reveal their true identities and addresses or have their posts removed by board administrators. http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/21/illinois-state-senator-pushes-anti-anonymity-bill/ Really, Ira??? If you can't stand the heat maybe you should try a different line of work.

con	Posted - 2/21/2013 10:33:46 AM \| show profile \| flag this post wait. what? the left is all for free speech- long as they agree with what is being said.

it's just tv folks	Posted - 2/21/2013 11:11:03 AM \| show profile \| flag this post not quite It's not just political message boards (of course you knew 2oldcruztwit would get it wrong). "Creates the Internet Posting Removal Act. Provides that a web site administrator shall, UPON REQUEST, remove any posted comments posted by an anonymous poster unless the anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post and confirms that his or her IP address, legal name, and home address are accurate. Effective 90 days after becoming law." http://legiscan.com/IL/bill/SB1614 I don't particularly agree with it, but I see where it's coming from. There are far too many lies and crap being spread by people who never have to take responsibility for their words. They never have to stand behind what they say. I'm not talking about opinions but malicious, intentional falsehoods. I don't think this legislation is the answer. On an ironic note, this guy is also sponsoring a bill that supports anonymous gun ownership.

beenthere	Posted - 2/21/2013 11:34:50 AM \| show profile \| flag this post There are far too many lies and crap being spread by people who never have to take responsibility for their words. They never have to stand behind what they say. I'm not talking about opinions but malicious, intentional falsehoods. ___ It's YOUR responsibility as a reader of a comment board to understand that comments are the OPINIONS of posters. If you, as a reader accept all comments as fact without any hesitation, that is YOUR fault if you end up believing something that is not true. Do we really need this? Seriously? Question: Why is a state senator so afraid of anonymous comments on random websites? I'm not. Post away.

mpdodgson	Posted - 2/21/2013 1:37:57 PM \| show profile \| flag this post I don't have a problem with it at all. The bill doesn't say "political message boards". cruise got that implication from Tuckers wingnut website. 'On line bullying' is a very very serious problem, much more prevalent and dangerous than one might think. 'On line revenge'; ex-boyfriend, ex-girlfriend, former spouse, whatever...also a very serious problem. Look it up. This is more than just another 'Lifetime Movie', some of these cases are tragic. I don't see this as a "If you can't stand the heat" issue--I see this as a 'don't think you can say anything you want without any repercussions' issue. 'Free Speech' on the sidewalk has it's legal limitations, don't you think speech on the internet should also have limitations?

beenthere	Posted - 2/21/2013 4:31:44 PM \| show profile \| flag this post This is an interesting topic that has come up on other BBs I visit: 'On line bullying' is a very very serious problem, much more prevalent and dangerous than one might think. 'On line revenge'; ex-boyfriend, ex-girlfriend, former spouse, whatever...also a very serious problem. Look it up. This is more than just another 'Lifetime Movie', some of these cases are tragic. And, after discussion, it has always boiled down to this: If you don't read it, is it bullying? If someone posted a crapload of insults aimed at me, but I never saw it, have I been bullied? How does an online posting become a tangible "bully?"

cruiser	Posted - 2/21/2013 4:59:28 PM \| show profile \| flag this post It seems to me the vast majority of the people seeking to limit free speech...either "on the sidewalk" or online...are left wingers. I offer as evidence their penchant for hurling pies at conservatives on college campuses, noisily heckling or interrupting speakers with whom they disagree, trying to shout down conservatives and run out the clock on talking head shows, dishonestly editing video clips of conservatives and Republicans (NBC is especially bad at this), etc. And there are idiots like Ira Silverstein. But they always want to be free to be mendacious and hurl whatever insults and/or ad hominem they please.

cruster	Posted - 2/21/2013 5:10:41 PM \| show profile \| flag this post seeking to limit free speech Of course there is no evidence that is REALLY happening, but there is no evidence of global cooling either, and hero cruiser knows that to be absolutely true!! Brave patriots like cruiser and con need to post secretly from the shadows, like superheroes with no jobs and lots of time on their hands. That's what the forefathers intended. The phrase Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death first came from teaprtyguy1776

beenthere	Posted - 2/21/2013 5:29:26 PM \| show profile \| flag this post mp, read this story. Just posted today. Rebecca Marino quits tennis because of bullying on social media http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/tennis-busted-racquet/rebecca-marino-quits-tennis-because-bullying-social-media-175955476--ten.html Why didn't she just close her twitter account? ___

mpdodgson	Posted - 2/21/2013 7:30:42 PM \| show profile \| flag this post beenthere; With all due respect; online bullying, aka 'cyberbullying' is a very very serious problem. I urge you to look into it before dissmissing it. "If you don't read it, is it bullying?" YES. It is. Look at it this way; is it still libel or slander if YOU don't hear it or read it?? YES. It is. You may not be a High School teenager, or College kid, but when your name and reputation is being smeared on line? It can be traumatic to say the least. "Why didn't she just close her twitter account?" That doesn't help at all--your thousands of peers haven't closed theirs. Kids have committed suicide because of online bullying. How serious can you get?? Add to all that, the idea that you threaten anyone for any reason without fear of repercussion? No, that's just not right. Newspapers have held the right for years that 'Letters to the Editor' must have the real name, even though they don't publish it. IMO--This isn't about free speech--it's about regulating harmful speech. And cruise is a walking example of everything that's bad about anonymous online bullshit. "the vast majority of the people seeking to limit free speech...either "on the sidewalk" or online...are left wingers" WOW. There's a blanket accusation. "I offer as evidence" total crap and innuendo. No quotes, no sources, no attribution. But I can do it online. "hurling pies"?? (The only thing that's going to stop a bad hurler with a pie is good guy with a pie) "interrupting speakers with whom they disagree" (Like yelling "you lie" at the President of the United States???) "run out the clock on talking head shows" (Watch hannity and Orally tonight. Any night) "dishonestly editing video clips" (both NBC and Fox are guilty of that among others). "But they always want to be free to be mendacious and hurl whatever insults and/or ad hominem they please." Don't you mean WE, not THEY??

orthicon	Posted - 2/21/2013 7:37:02 PM \| show profile \| flag this post "..how does an online posting become bullying?.." i can think of a number of teenagers..mostly girls, who could tell you exactly how.. unforftunately, though, they can't..because they're all DEAD.. suicides..because of online bullying

beenthere	Posted - 2/22/2013 9:59:41 AM \| show profile \| flag this post Add to all that, the idea that you threaten anyone for any reason without fear of repercussion? No, that's just not right. Newspapers have held the right for years that 'Letters to the Editor' must have the real name, even though they don't publish it. IMO--This isn't about free speech--it's about regulating harmful speech. ___ I absolutely agree that anyone who threatens needs to be dealt with via the authorities, and that websites need to give up the IDs of those that do. That is simply common sense. Orth, while I am sensitive to those who have committed suicide (I have personal experience with this), do you have any figures as to how many girls committed suicide as a direct result of reading a post online? 2, 3, 4??? Do you have proof that they would not have committed suicide anyway? I think we hear one or two stories in the news and ALL OF A SUDDEN there is an 'epidemic.' Doesn't work that way. A very good example of this is cervical cancer stats. People think hundreds of thousand of women die each year from cervical cancer, when the CDC stats are 3,909 deaths in 2009. Less than 4,000/annually. It is one of the LEAST likely cancers women will get, doesn't even crack the top 10. Yet media/advertising would lead you to believe otherwise because it suits their purpose when making money from advertising and selling vaccines. Show me how if a girl doesn't know what is being said about her that she will react in any way. She won't, because she doesn't know. People are putting too much power in online comments, believing them as truth, when they are not. Celebrities ignore this type of crap all the time. Block people from twitter, block people from Facebook if you don;t like them, take accountability for yourself. If people cross the line and enter stalk/threaten territory, then deal with them appropriately through appropriate channels. But to insist on making every BB/comment/etc. mandatory by name is ludicris. How will it be enforced? Will this actually deter kids from posting? Initially it might, but ultimately they will just post the same crap and happily take ownership of their comments, kind of like a one-up-manship contest. It won't make a difference. It boils down to parenting, again. Parents don't teach their own children how to behave. We make life so damn complicated, when the simple truth is right in front of our faces. Teach your kids to behave. Don't read hateful stuff. Find something constructive to do. We don't need politicians to tell us how to behave.

blackedtaped	Posted - 2/22/2013 10:52:59 AM \| show profile \| flag this post beenthere... If a local newspaper prints a false story about you, say calling you a pedophile, you would be outraged and sue them. The fact that you subscribe to the paper or even read it at all would be totally irrelevant. The fact that people that know you and interact with you everyday do read the paper is relevant. The same can be said for a post on a website that is read by peers. Whether or not the targeted person reads the posts is irrelevant, the harm is done when those who knows and interact with the targeted person read the posts. I should point out how you continue to spread false information about the medical community. Fortunately your posts here fall on deaf ears, but I hope you take better care with anything you post elsewhere. In the case of cervical cancer, the numbers you stated told half the story. There were over 12,000 diagnosed cases in 2009, and there were over 3000 deaths as you stated. What you neglected to mention was the reason the numbers continue to go down is that more women are getting pap smears and as a result early detection has reduced the threat significantly. The reason more women are getting pap smears is the fact they are made aware of the dangers of cervical cancer. Here is a link to the CD website (I assume since you quoted their numbers you respect their opinion): http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/statistics/ You continue to misrepresent the motives of the medical community. I just hope you keep those opinions here and do not post them somewhere else, perhaps a forum where a reader might actually take you seriously. I would hate to think one woman would die from cervical cancer because she read somewhere that cervical cancer is not a real threat, after all "media/advertising would lead you to believe otherwise because it suits their purpose when making money from advertising and selling vaccines." And I would hope you would not want that either.