LawTalkers - Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

Show me the law that prohibits me from going on your Facebook page, and inciting others to do so, and writing, "Flower will let anyone pollinate him. Anyway. Total whore... And ugly, too."

Jesus fucking motherfucking son of a fucking motherfucking motherfucker. I am going to go through this one more time, reeeeaaaal slow like:

You said: "We cannot pass laws prohibiting people from saying whatever they like to others on things like Facebook. The only applicable laws are those for defamation."

I said: "[T]his is not true."

You said: "We could pass those laws. And they'd be stupid, futile, and unconstitutional."

I said: "No, there are many laws that currently exist that prevent 'people from saying whatever they like to others on things like Facebook'."

I use quotation marks above to indicate that I am writing down here EXACTLY WHAT YOU WROTE AND EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE in those prior posts. Please note that there was no discussion about the constitutionality of laws preventing people from calling other people sluts. You just fucking made that last part up to try to distract from the undeniable and universally acknowledged fact that WHAT YOU SAID WAS INCORRECT AND WHAT I SAID IS CORRECT. I know that, in your mind, what you said is, "It would be very difficult to enact laws that would pass constitutional muster and that would also limit the type of speach you are discussing here." But that only occurred in your mind. Just like, in your mind, when the gay kid gets picked on, the quarterback, the captain of the lacrosse team, and the prom king all stand up, surround the bully, and say in unison, "What you are doing is wrong and does nothing except to expose your own weakness and flaws as a human being." And then the bully cries, talks about his rough home life, and everyone gets along, like in The Breakfast Club. But I read an album review this very morning about a musician who, although straight, was friends with the gay kids and, because of this, other kids would spit on him on the bus every day. And when he tried to stand up for himself he more than once ended up in the hospital. That is reality. So stop trying to reinvent the conversation in which I was correct and you were incorrect, stopy trying to pretend your high schools was some anti-bullying nirvana, and stop denying me the apology I deserve. Then, let us never speak of this incident again.

Atticus Grinch

11-13-2013 03:02 PM

Re: Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 484435)

Atticus once called me Patentparacheese. I'm not sure what it meant and I wasn't then, but that hurt. Oh, that hurt.

I have no memory of this and don't know what I meant, but in retrospect I believe I should just say "Sorry" and not try to justify it.

Pretty Little Flower

11-13-2013 03:04 PM

Re: Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 484455)

My confusion was meant to be a joke but am I the only one who still remembers the episode with the guy in the burgundy velvet suit who followed a poster here after an awkward tête-à-tête on a dating website? You know, the guy who claimed to know how to Treat The Ladies but whose signature move was apparently being butthurt when people mocked him?

Yes, Edwardian tuxedo guy! I knew what you were saying was ringing some vague bell. Now, to be fair, he followed her here because she was a moron and linked to his blog or web site multiple times and so he naturally got curious why he was suddenly getting dozens of hits directed from some lawyer chat board site, and came here to find her openly mocking him. So I never had a whole lot of sympathy for her either.

Sidd Finch

11-13-2013 03:07 PM

Re: Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 484455)

Are you sure that was this Board?

Not Bob

11-13-2013 03:30 PM

You could really be a Beau Brummell, baby, if you just gave it half a chance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 484455)

Thanks you clearing that up. And, no, I (now) remember that guy, too. I just didn't understand the connection to ppnyc.

Re the Edwardian Dandy Incident, wasn't it a case of someone here looking at dating sites for entertainment, and who posted the guy's pic and profile?

Not Bob

11-13-2013 03:36 PM

How does it feel? To be on your own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower (Post 484436)

How do you feel about the fact that you were the real enabler but Penske and I get all the blame? How does that make you feel?

How does it feel? Not Good. But you knew that, didn't you?

Pretty Little Flower

11-13-2013 03:41 PM

Re: You could really be a Beau Brummell, baby, if you just gave it half a chance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Not Bob (Post 484460)

I think she was also actively on the dating site and I think they even had communications in that context, and then she came here, showed his profile and then also linked to his blog or web site or somethign, which allowed him to see all the traffic he was suddenyl getting from this site. Then he came here and was all offended and cray. It was an explosion of weirdness and stupidity on both their parts, but highly entertaining. It may have all occurred on a predecessor board.

dtb	11-13-2013 03:42 PM

Re: Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 484455)

God, no. That whole episode remains firmly established in the top 10 on my list of Internet Hilarity I Have Experienced

Sidd Finch

11-13-2013 04:36 PM

Re: Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtb (Post 484463)

God, no. That whole episode remains firmly established in the top 10 on my list of Internet Hilarity I Have Experienced

Wow. I clearly missed this. Must have been during my long board hiatus.

taxwonk

11-13-2013 04:43 PM

Re: Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 484330)

I was all in favor of public health when that's what it was. Prevention of cholera by not shitting in the well is something I can get behind. Prevention of suicide, not so much. There's miles of moral distance between majoritarian limitations on freedom to prevent incurable communicable diseases and those which are for the benefit of the unfortunate invalid him/herself. I certainly don't want to sound like a libertarian kook, but there is no conceptual limit to the idea of behavior-based public health measures if "public" means "every member of the public individually." At least with second-hand smoke there's a health risk TO THE PUBLIC, but my cheeseburger ain't putting out fumes.

Your cheeseburger isn't telling you to tie some young man who may or may not be gay to the tailgate of your pickup ruck and dragging him down a couple miles of bad road, either. But you can keep on talking about the miles of moral distance.

Any threat to any individual's right to be free to do what he does with whoever he does it with is a threat to the public. It eats away at the foundation of all of our rights to privacy.

taxwonk

11-13-2013 04:45 PM

Re: Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 484331)

This represents the best thinking on the issue — the acknowledgment that it is complicated and hard and there are no obvious solutions. But I guarantee that the comment section of your local newspapers will be filled with self-congratulatory clucking after the next suicide: the parents must have known something; the school should have done more; the friends should have reached out. But every bad outcome will be taken as evidence that more could have been done. Newsflash: Bullying wasn't "tolerated" in our generation or any other — it's just that they years before reached the conclusion we'll soon reach again: neither the police, nor expulsion, nor peer counseling, nor duking it out makes any difference toward prevention. The only cure is the passage of time, and some cases will always be incurable.

Some cases will always be incurable. The response in those cases is to do what we do whenever someone makes it impossible for the rest of society to function freely and safely. We put them away where they can't be a danger to everyone else.

taxwonk

11-13-2013 04:54 PM

Re: Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 484344)

The harm is that we've already got more than enough idiotic interference on the part of law enforcement and government. We're just getting to the point where govt is realizing it has no business telling people they can't smoke pot, and should not be deciding who can and cannot marry. And so given these strides in paring down its officious interactions with the public regarding these matters, it should now start regulating other private behaviors?

The red tape created by endless do-gooder laws is endless. It hampers our economy. It creates needless bureaucratic work. And it's all counterproductive. The more you teach people to ask the govt for intervention, the more they'll lose the ability to handle the problem on their own.

The minute your actions impinge on my actions, it is no longer a "private action" unless you are willing to pay me and everyone else affected to put up with your action. Furthermore, the fact that somebody gets beaten up or kills herself is about as strong as proof can get that we can't handle he problem on our own.

taxwonk

11-13-2013 05:02 PM

Re: Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield (Post 484351)

I don't know about you, but in my high school, way-back-when, I don't recall any of the gay kids being picked on. That would've been considered the ultimate in "dick moves" that would have branded one a social pariah.

If you're telling me that a majority of kids today think picking on a kid because he's gay is alright, or that they'd turn their head the other way when someone did it, I'm calling bullshit.

The media promotes outlier instances of intolerance. They are not the rule. And they certainly aren't a basis for legislative changes.

Way back when I was in law school, they taught us that any act, including speech, that puts a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm constitutes an assault. I seem to recall that "imminent" did not mean "right that very instant" but rather, in the immediately foreseeable future. Such as, say, on the playground after last bell. Or the next time you show your little pussy faggot face in this gym.

No need for new legislation. Just enforcement.

Pretty Little Flower

11-13-2013 05:02 PM

Re: Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

Quote:

Originally Posted by taxwonk (Post 484467)

Soon you are going to get to the posts where Sebastian says that the only possible constitutional laws that could limit in any way what one says to someone else on Facebook are defamation laws. You will be tempted to fight him on this point, but I assure you, it is not worth the trouble.

taxwonk

11-13-2013 05:15 PM

Re: Towards A Virtual Williamsburg!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch (Post 484358)

1. Propose a punishment you think is proportional.

2. Now do it again, except this time the slur was posted at midnight on Instagram.

3. Now do it again, adding the fact that the victim elsewhere spread the rumor that the perpetrator, a seventh grader, blew a guy in the bathroom.

1. This probably isn't appropriate, but it is proportional. Humiliate the fucker. Stand his ass up I front of the whole school, ask him what he called the bully-ee. Then make him explain how he knows. Etc., until the bully is reduced to tears, lying curled up in a fetal position on the stage of the school auditorium.

Alternatively, take away the offender's extracurricular activities and give him a nice long essay on privacy, tolerance, and keeping his big fucking mouth shut to write in detention.

2. The school really doesn't have any jurisdiction over what gets posted on Instagram. Of course, in its capacity as the educational force in he child's life, the school probably has jurisdiction to let the offender's parents know what was done and express its concern.

3. If both of the kids are guilty of the same thing, then they should be jointly shamed. The village elders shall take them outside the gates of the city where they shall be put to death by stoning for their intransigence.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:03 PM.

Page 320 of 334

320

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page